132 réponses à ce sujet

[Vegeta 77]

3 classes is enough to me.

[sangy]

I really couldn't say until I did a full play through, but I imagine it's covered.  I don't think they'd leave us with weak classes that just don't cut it.

[TheJediSaint]

Three classes cover all the basics.  It's specializations that add variety.  I wouldn't be surprised if new specializations are added in future content.

[SerCambria358]

Im fine with what we have but a hybrid class i want (similar to knight enchanter) is a mix between warrior and rogue. Something like a fencer (though i still prefer the 2handed style)

(ironically this piece has a glowing hand like the inquisitor)

[Eri]

^

When you have magic users, hand to hand combat is superfluous. Particularly against armour as well

except that mages are reliant on a mana pool that can run dry and leave them pretty damn vulnerable if that point is reached (without melee classes around to protect them), whereas hand-to-hand have no such restrictions. No single class aces all others - they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

[The Baconer]

Im fine with what we have but a hybrid class i want (similar to knight enchanter) is a mix between warrior and rogue. Something like a fencer (though i still prefer the 2handed style)

(ironically this piece has a glowing hand like the inquisitor)

 

You could make Duelist emulate that wonderfully with a few tweaks.

[The Baconer]

except that mages are reliant on a mana pool that can run dry and leave them pretty damn vulnerable if that point is reached (without melee classes around to protect them), whereas hand-to-hand have no such restrictions. No single class aces all others - they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

A mage monk without their magic would still retain their fighting abilities. A mage monk with access to their magic is just better in every way than a regular monk.

[Eri]

A mage monk without their magic would still retain their fighting abilities. A mage monk with access to their magic is just better in every way than a regular monk.

Who said anything about a 'mage monk' though? I was replying to the post that mentioned mages circumvent the need for hand-to-hand combat, which I was pointing out was false.

 

I certainly have no issue with hybrid classes, just pointing out that a single class (not hybrid) can't negate a whole other class.

[Kantr]

except that mages are reliant on a mana pool that can run dry and leave them pretty damn vulnerable if that point is reached (without melee classes around to protect them), whereas hand-to-hand have no such restrictions. No single class aces all others - they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

Perhaps. Unless you are blown up by a fireball first.

[boissiere]

For the moment I never had to complain about the number and specificity of each class. So, for me, it is fine.

[nutcrackr]

3 classes same as Diablo 1 is fine for me! DA4 they can add necromancer and druid

[The Baconer]

Who said anything about a 'mage monk' though? I was replying to the post that mentioned mages circumvent the need for hand-to-hand combat, which I was pointing out was false.

 

I certainly have no issue with hybrid classes, just pointing out that a single class (not hybrid) can't negate a whole other class.

 

Ah, that is indeed true.

[Eri]

Perhaps. Unless you are blown up by a fireball first.

That is assuming rather a lot, and if you've faced melee fighters of at least similar level to that of your mage you will know that a single fireball spell won't kill them. I'm not really sure what extended circumstances you're imagining where a mage of similar level to their foes can just eliminate all of said foes without melee fighters holding them back and so preventing the mage from becoming a new sheath for said foes' swords.

 

Mages favor quick bouts of casting to end things quickly (not waves of enemies) or failing that, circumstances in which they have the ability to replenish their mana stocks when they run low (which they will, usually quite quickly); when you have melee fighters hacking at you, blocking escape, etc and nobody to hold them off (because hey! you don't need those melee classes!) - you're rather dead.. or you're cheating.

[cindercatz]

I'd like to see the number of weapon specs expanded and decoupled from base classes. Just more freedom and options. I would love to see a Monk class, but you could also just work it in as starting weapon specs (barehanded, staves, and ropedart/chain). Barehanded would have to be some kind of enchanted thing, maybe they have a series of ritual lyrium runes tattooed into the skin. Maybe it turns out that's what Denarius was researching with Fenris.

 

edit @Eri: ..or you just have a melee focused mage.

edit 2: remembered the name

[Patchwork]

Maybe Sandal's prophosy will come true and everyone will get access to magic. 

 

Let's face some of the warrior/rogue specs have edged into mage territory as is. 

[Muspade]

They need to get rid of classes entirely.

Let's not.

Other than that, not really. 3 classes seems like enough.

[Icy Magebane]

Maybe Sandal's prophosy will come true and everyone will get access to magic. 

 

Let's face some of the warrior/rogue specs have edged into mage territory as is. 

That sounds like it would be a nightmare... everyone suddenly being aware inside the Fade and susceptible to demonic possession?  No thanks, unless the demons disappear for some reason... but that's one of the hallmarks of Dragon Age.  And since this is Dragon Age, I can't imagine "everyone gets magic" not having horrifically bad side effects...

[Muspade]

I'm not trolling, I have logical reasoning with premise why the class based system is inconvenient. 

 

Does it involve blowing gameplay balance out in the sky? 

[Chrom72]

I don't really know what other class it would be. Monks don't really feel right for Dragon Age. I could maybe see splitting rogues up into rogues and rangers like someone else said. Then for rangers you could have one specialization for straight up ranged damage, one for beast summoning like Origins, and I'm not really sure what the third would be. Rogues could then stick with the their current specializations.

[Muspade]

Balance is not exclusive to a class based system. Balance is according to how the game is designed and implemented.

Blizzard has tried to balance their game for years. They've not yet succeeded.

Still yet to hear this "logical" arguement which I expect to be your opinion.

[WidePaul]

I like the idea but it probably won't happen, besides, I have dragon's dogma if I want a hybrid class, magic archer FTW.