132 réponses à ce sujet

[LaughingWolf]

I think maybe the classes should be widely expanded on and be more flexible.

Personally, I want to be able dual wield swords again as well as be able to make a character that only uses a single 1H sword

[The Baconer]

A classless system doesn't mesh well with Dragon Age, mostly because of the way magic works. I've heard others suggest a system of selecting mage or non-mage, but that would be nonsense. I think the current classes can be made sufficiently flexible and versatile through specializations.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Hate to sound boring but I think the 3 core classes are just fine. They separate the core differences nicely and the specializations are good enough to further specialize your class to your liking. 

Its not that I dont want more classes. I just think that when it comes to what the devs should focus on, classes are fine. Opportunity cost mind and all that.

[Dunbartacus]

The current class system has great room for flexibility.

 

DA:I could even be considered a reboot. New engine, Open World, In-depth Crafting, Combat Encounters Redesigned, No health regeneration, Choices with consequences most of which were a result of fan feedback about DA 2. Should all these design decisions result in a successful and amazing gaming experience I could see them building on that and adding more base trees, weapon styles and specializations for each class In further installments(after all they have Story ideas/plans up to DA 5).

[prosthetic soul]

There needs to be a gun wielding class. 

 

And no, I don't care that it doesn't fit with the lore.  Every RPG needs a gun toting class.  GUN. FIREARMS. PISTOLS. RIFLES.  YEEEHAW

[Spectre Impersonator]

There are some races (like Golems) that are a class all their own.

[Thibax]

No problem with just 3 classes.

But I hope that Bioware adds more spell/talents trees and specializations in DAI content, at least with an expansion.

Please, expand the options inside the classes and not restrict us.

[HK-90210]

Specializations? Sure. Classes? No.

[GipsyDangeresque]

Yes, I think Dragon Age tries to use three classes to cover too much ground. It'd be interesting to split them all in half. Consider the following:

 

Warrior splits into massive armor using Champions (sword+shield and polearm) and heavy armor using Warriors (dual slashing weapons/swords and axes, and two-handed swords.)

 

Rogue splits into light armor wearing Shadows (double daggers and crossbows) and medium armor wearing Rogues (rapiers/scimitars/dexterity blades + buckler/parrying dagger, and longbows.)

 

Mage should then split into two different themes based on their magical education: robe/cloth wearing Circle Mages that wield spells separated into the four schools of magic with rigid training and light armored Apostate Mages that have more wild and unique forms of magic. Both mages would wield the primal elements as part of their skillset in different ways, the Circle Mages would know the spells we are familiar with as the iconic abilities of a mage, whereas Apostates/Free Mages would wield the elements in more creative ways then what you would learn from a book, and also would wield nature magic under the purview of Dalish mages, and the more necrotic magics of the Entropy school that are now usually more prohibited.

 

Champion specializations: Guardian, Templar, Spirit Warrior, Tactician

Warrior specializations: Reaver, Berserker, Dervish, Warleader

Shadow specializations: Assassin, Tempest, Infiltrator, Artificer

Rogue specializations: Duelist, Ranger, Bard, Legionnaire Scout

Circle Mage specializations: Knight-Enchanter, Spirit Healer, Force Mage (chantry approved)

Apostate Mage specializations: Arcane Warrior, Blood Mage, Keeper, Shapeshifter (lost arts/forbidden arts)

[UniformGreyColor]

Yes, I think Dragon Age tries to use three classes to cover too much ground. It'd be interesting to split them all in half. Consider the following:

 

Warrior splits into heavy armor using Champions (sword+shield and polearm) and medium armor using Warriors (dual slashing weapons/swords and axes, and two-handed swords) with the aggressive specializations focused on the medium armor class.

 

Rogue splits into light armor wearing Shadows (double daggers and crossbows) and medium armor wearing Rogues (rapiers/scimitars/dexterity blades + buckler/parrying dagger, and longbows.)

 

Mage should then split into two different themes based on their magical education: Circle Mages that wield spells separated into the four schools of magic with rigid training and Apostate Mages that have more wild and unique forms of magic. Both mages would wield the primal elements as part of their skillset in different ways, the Circle Mages would know the spells we are familiar with as the iconic abilities of a mage, whereas Apostates/Free Mages would wield the elements in more creative ways then what you would learn from a book, and also would wield nature magic under the purview of Dalish mages, and the more necrotic magics of the Entropy school that are now usually more prohibited.

 

*snip*

 

Congratulations, you just described the way I play DA:O while I was staying true to the characters' dispositions.

[GipsyDangeresque]

Congratulations, you just described the way I play DA:O while I was staying true to the characters' dispositions.

 

The only caveats I'd make are that I think armor overlap should be fine insofar as wearing whatever you want even within my new design, and maybe each of our twins sharing some specializations would be alright as well. Both mages could turn to blood magic, either kind of warrior can be a templar, maybe bards come in all shapes and sizes of rogues.

[Dunbartacus]

Yes, I think Dragon Age tries to use three classes to cover too much ground. It'd be interesting to split them all in half. Consider the following:

 

Warrior splits into massive armor using Champions (sword+shield and polearm) and heavy armor using Warriors (dual slashing weapons/swords and axes, and two-handed swords) with the aggressive specializations focused on the medium armor class.

 

Rogue splits into light armor wearing Shadows (double daggers and crossbows) and medium armor wearing Rogues (rapiers/scimitars/dexterity blades + buckler/parrying dagger, and longbows.)

 

Mage should then split into two different themes based on their magical education: Circle Mages that wield spells separated into the four schools of magic with rigid training and Apostate Mages that have more wild and unique forms of magic. Both mages would wield the primal elements as part of their skillset in different ways, the Circle Mages would know the spells we are familiar with as the iconic abilities of a mage, whereas Apostates/Free Mages would wield the elements in more creative ways then what you would learn from a book, and also would wield nature magic under the purview of Dalish mages, and the more necrotic magics of the Entropy school that are now usually more prohibited.

 

Champion specializations: Guardian, Templar, Spirit Warrior, Tactician

Warrior specializations: Reaver, Berserker, Dervish, Warleader

Shadow specializations: Assassin, Tempest, Infiltrator, Artificer

Rogue specializations: Duelist, Ranger, Bard, Legionnaire Scout

Circle Mage specializations: Knight-Enchanter, Spirit Healer, Force Mage (chantry approved)

Apostate Mage specializations: Arcane Warrior, Blood Mage, Keeper, Shapeshifter (lost arts/forbidden arts)

Sounds like a mammoth effort for Bioware not that i wouldn't love that many weapon styles/specializations. My one issue is the break up of the classes, leave the classes the way they are whilst adding the new weapon styles and specs thus allowing more customization in three classes than Six.

[Jimbo_Gee79]

I think it needs several. There is nothing wrong with having more than three. I dont understand the needs of gaming developers to minimize everything into it's simplest form. Baldurs gate did it to nice effect. Yeah ok it didnt really change the overall gameplay but it felt like your character.

 

I cant stand these generic terms for everything. I seriously think that they have taken streamlining too far and they are catering to lazy gamers.

[Patchwork]

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...

 

It would wouldn't it mwahaha

 

It's a huge game changer but it is the solution I could see sheltered but powerful mage (make them all like us!) or a Fade spirit/demon like this Elder One could be coming up with because it suits their needs. 

 

And I'd like there to be some lasting effects to the veil being constantly torn. A thing I like about ME is that even after you save the civilians on Feros the Thorian's influence lingers, they get new problems because of what happened to them. It would be nice if Thedas changed because the divide between the Fade and the world is weaker, everyone becomes a mage is perhaps too extreme but it doesn't seem like something that  should get all fixed up just because the Inquisitor defeated the Elder One.    

[Rane7685]

What about a rogue that actually uses a sword for a proper duel. Duelist specs have been so disappointing, I don't want to always play the assassin rogue (in the shadows with a poisoned blade). I want the wise cracking rogue with a wit as sharp as his sword

 

[Hydwn]

 

Champion specializations: Guardian, Templar, Spirit Warrior, Tactician

Warrior specializations: Reaver, Berserker, Dervish, Warleader

Shadow specializations: Assassin, Tempest, Infiltrator, Artificer

Rogue specializations: Duelist, Ranger, Bard, Legionnaire Scout

Circle Mage specializations: Knight-Enchanter, Spirit Healer, Force Mage (chantry approved)

Apostate Mage specializations: Arcane Warrior, Blood Mage, Keeper, Shapeshifter (lost arts/forbidden arts)

 

I like a lot of these, but there isn't really anything on that list that couldn't be done under the existing three classes.  Champion and Warrior are the current Warrior after all, divided.

 

There's a whole history here.  

 

Dungeons and Dragons invented the "class" system.  In its basic form, it had four: fighter, mage, thief, and cleric.  It kept going back and forth between adding or subtracting monk, paladin, bard, druid, and then pulling back again to the basic four.  

 

Early video game RPGs - including Dungeons and Dragons licensed properties - tended to stick with its basic four, though there were a few exceptions (Ultima 4 had a class for each virtue).  But then came the great schism between Japanese RPG and the Western one.

 

Final Fantasy in 1987 had six jobs.  Then in the second they scrapped jobs altogether, and then they were back with more than 25 in the third.  Final Fantasy itself has gone back and forth from six, to zero, to dozens ever since, but the trend was set for Japanese RPGs (along with the trend toward a more linear, more idealized story without the grand moral choices).

 

On the other end, the split really came with the landmark Sierra computer game Quest for Glory (1989) which boiled down the class system by removing cleric and going with fighter/mage/thief.  Cleric had always been a problem for Dungeons and Dragons, because some quarters objected to a priest worshipping either Pagan or imaginary gods, and they'd taken flack from this.  Quest for Glory did have a prestige class of "Paladin" in the second game, but it was decidedly non-religious.  It set the tone for the Western RPG (along with the big moral choices, and less idealized atmosphere).

 

(MMOs tend to be exceptions to that rule, though it's notable that the grandaddy of the big Western MMO World of Warcraft has half as many classes as its Japanese equivalent Final Fantasy XI).

 

I think Dragon Age does well with its three basic classes.  Everything suggested here can be done with specializations.  The universe already has monks - the Silent Sisters dwarves, who are warriors.  It has already had bards, and rangers, and a druid is just a keeper/shapechanger.  It has fencers and spellswords.  Artificer gives us machinists.  It doesn't have my favourite Final Fantasy class of blue mage, but that could be done with specializations too.

 

Spirit Healers have cleric's powers covered, and a mage chantry loyalist is really all a cleric is (it wouldn't be in keeping with the lore to have the Maker grant powers). 

[Cavemandiary]

I agree that there is nothing magic about the number 3. Having said that, one should not add content for the sake of content. It needs to make sense, and for the moment it doesn´t seem to in the DA universe.

 

Warrior, Rogue and Mage cover all the basic archetypes of any fantasy we know of. The monk, for instanse, is a martial artist. But if you think about it, so is the rogue, is he also relies on avoiding damage rather than migitating it. The nature of the rogue also allows for use of the bow this way, as being ranged is the perfect way to stay out of harms way, and an arrow shot from stealth should do a lot of damage.

 

The druid is a mage, who has specialised in shapeshifting and wilderness lore. Even if you give him different skills, at his very core, is still a mage. A cleric/paladin is a warrior who has dipped into magic, whether it is buffing, defending, healing or offensively, in the end he now supplements his combat/tanking prowess with limited magic.

 

And that is why we have specializations. So that you can dip deeper into a certain area (reaver takes the warriors offensive ability to a whole new level) or make up for certain weaknesses that you do not like.

 

I disagree about Baldurs Gate. Unlike most people, I did not pick it up until years later. So I am not colored by any nostalgia that so many seem to be. No doubt that it was an incredible game at release, but it hasn´t aged well unless you are intimitely familiar with the DnD universe - speaking in terms of combat and customization, not the actual story.

 

 

I think it needs several. There is nothing wrong with having more than three. I dont understand the needs of gaming developers to minimize everything into it's simplest form. Baldurs gate did it to nice effect.

[Gebert]

I'd rather they merged Rogue and Warrior into something like a "Mundane", and then expand upon the Specializations available and let those, the regular skills and equipment define the characters' "class".

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

The all round "normal real-life soldier", who's free of this dps tank healer nonsense.

[UltimateGohanSS]

No Sir

[Gtdef]

I was about to write a big post but it turned out to be a rant so I deleted it. Bottomline, less classes, more specializations. Since the class only matters for combat purposes, then it's in the best interests of everyone to start as the universal class and specialize according to his experience with the combat system.

 

In case of dragon age, a distinction between mundane and magic is reasonable, but personally I'd prefer if the setting was more exotic, which allows for overlaps.

[DooomCookie]

Nah.  If anything, having warrior/mage/rogue/jew, where jew is any special class specific to that game, is even more cliched than warrior/mage/rogue.

[Reaverwind]

I'd rather they merged Rogue and Warrior into something like a "Mundane", and then expand upon the Specializations available and let those, the regular skills and equipment define the characters' "class".

 

Yep - the rogue class is an arbitrary distinction anyway. For all intents and purposes, they're simply lightly armored warriors who haven't forgotten how to use bows.   I'd prefer the divide between mundane and magical, with a far more creative use of combat and non-combat specializations and skills.