1390 réponses à ce sujet

[sylvanaerie]

Yeah ... not.

Revive is an actual spell on the "Creation" spell tree.  Both may function to revive downed party members, but Revive is cast separately from the Focus one and uses Mana (I believe I saw the cost as 85pts).

[Sephard]

Revive is an actual spell on the "Creation" spell tree.  Both may function to revive downed party members, but Revive is cast separately from the Focus one and uses Mana (I believe I saw the cost as 85pts).

 

Oh wait - there is an actual "Revive"-Spell?

*confused*

I'm sorry then, I thought this did not exist.

Do you have a source? Like a screenshot or anything?

[Xilizhra]

Modding the game to add an actual heal spell would at least solve some of my rage...

[sylvanaerie]

Oh wait - there is an actual "Revive"-Spell?

*confused*

I'm sorry then, I thought this did not exist.

Do you have a source? Like a screenshot or anything?

 

This thread. OP has pics of the skill trees and a couple videos explaining some of the abilities.  

 

http://forum.bioware...trees-in-depth/

[The Elder King]

Oh god.... now it makes no sense. Removing healing so people don't have to bring a mage all the time but the only healing spell left needs a mage to cast it.

  
How it makes no sense? The focus abilities are still tied to the class. It'd male no sense for an actual healing spell to be available for m
Non-mages (Regardless of the focus system).
I think it might be used more then We think, since focus talents seem to have three tiers, so it might be possible to cast it with 1/3 of the focus bar, with minor effects.

Technically, you do and don't at the same time. It's one focus ability that fuses both Group Heal and Revive together.

  

I read something like you can revive unconscious characters with the Group Heal spell as well as walking to them and reviving them with the action button, (Mass Effect 3 MP style).

There's still a mana-based revive spell.

Oh wait - there is an actual "Revive"-Spell?
*confused*
I'm sorry then, I thought this did not exist.
Do you have a source? Like a screenshot or anything?

Check the YouTube mega-thread from Hrungr. The video about the talent trees (There might be two of them).

[NRieh]

 

They didn't remove heals from mages to remove the necessity of mages.  They removed heals to balance combat and make higher difficulty play more challenging than the previous games.

So... I can't cast my spells on easy&normal, because it seemed to possibly simplify someone's hard&nightmare?...

 

Awesome solution! Why not multiply my damage taken and weaken my damage done as well? I mean, they do take more and deliver less damage on hards, right? Right?   

[Dunbartacus]

Yeah ... not.

Pretty sure the revive in the spirit tree is not a focus ability thus a group heal spell that also revives and a revive spell.

[lolwut]

So... I can't cast my spells on easy&normal, because it seemed to possibly simplify someone's hard&nightmare?...

 

Awesome solution! Why not multiply my damage taken and weaken my damage done as well? I mean, they do take more and deliver less damage on hards, right? Right?   

 

Yeah, no. They killed unlimited instant healing in order to be able to better balance the combat and make it so that not every interaction is a potential party wipe and yet can still be meaningful. Not to make things harder for people playing on easy and normal.

[sylvanaerie]

So... I can't cast my spells on easy&normal, because it seemed to possibly simplify someone's hard&nightmare?...

 

Awesome solution! Why not multiply my damage taken and weaken my damage done as well? I mean, they do take more and deliver less damage on hards, right? Right?   

 

I dunno, I don't work for Bioware, just repeating what I've been reading on the boards.  That the decision was made to rework combat from the ground up removing the necessity for healing based recuperation.  Now combat is a game of attrition, it seems, worked around the premise you have limited access to heals/recuperation and mitigate damage with guard/barrier etc vs healing it after it's dealt.

 

It's my understanding that reviving companions outside of combat (and perhaps inside as well) does so with a higher percentage of health restored on casual mode vs hard/nightmare.  Unsure if they also come back with the old "injury" system intact where you had limited recovery till 'rest or injury kit' was applied to them.

[Sephard]

Pretty sure the revive in the spirit tree is not a focus ability thus a group heal spell that also revives and a revive spell.

 

I stand corrected.

[Dunbartacus]

I dunno, I don't work for Bioware, just repeating what I've been reading on the boards.  That the decision was made to rework combat from the ground up removing the necessity for healing based recuperation.  Now combat is a game of attrition, it seems, worked around the premise you have limited access to heals/recuperation and mitigate damage with guard/barrier etc vs healing it after it's dealt.

 

It's my understanding that reviving companions outside of combat (and perhaps inside as well) does so with a higher percentage of health restored.  Unsure if they also come back with the old "injury" system intact where you had limited recovery till 'rest or injury kit' was applied to them.

no injuries anymore

[The Elder King]

So... I can't cast my spells on easy&normal, because it seemed to possibly simplify someone's hard&nightmare?...
 
Awesome solution! Why not multiply my damage taken and weaken my damage done as well? I mean, they do take more and deliver less damage on hards, right? Right?

So They should've created to different combat and encounter systems?

[Xilizhra]

So They should've created to different combat and encounter systems?

Yes.

 

And would anyone use this hypothetical Heal mod if it existed?

[Heimdall]

I get that some people feel alienated about not being able to play a healer, but I really think the reactions have been overblown. Bioware didn't do this out of some malign desire to deprive you of healing spells, they're experimenting with a new approach to combat and encounter design, completely changing how combat must be approached. There's more risk now, you can't rush in half cocked and spam healing spells to get through it. The focus on attrition forces you to think and weigh your option when you see an enemy on the horizon. To those saying,"But healing spells should be an optional play style!" I can only say that it would completely destroy the intent of the system by taking away the attrition aspect. If anything, I'm thrilled that Bioware is so willing to experiment between installments (Unlike quite a few video game franchises these days) even if it does bring in calls of "But it was PERFECT before!!!!!" (Though it never was, Not that anyone is saying that here).

As for the RP complaint, I'll admit that one holds water. It does keep you from RPing a healing character, but there are always limits to roleplaying, healers just happen to be one of them this time. In exchange you get things like necromancer, rift mage, new rogue specializations and builds, ect. If you still want something along those lines, you can focus your character on barriers and buffs.

I'll admit, this doesn't quite fit the lore, but I'm quite willing to accept story/gameplay segregation on this point if the results are satisfactory.

I suppose what I'm saying is, try the new system, then decide whether the loss of healing spells is such a terrible thing.

[Xilizhra]

As for the RP complaint, I'll admit that one holds water. It does keep you from RPing a healing character, but there are always limits to roleplaying, healers just happen to be one of them this time. In exchange you get things like necromancer, rift mage, new rogue specializations and builds, ect. If you still want something along those lines, you can focus your character on barriers and buffs.

Not... really. Almost all the mage specializations consist mostly of spells that had been usable without a specialization in previous games. And barriers/buffs aren't the same thing at all.

[The Elder King]

Yes.
 
And would anyone use this hypothetical Heal mod if it existed?

I disagree. Having two different system is, in my opinion, ridicolous (not to say a probably impossible task with the current dev time, expecially Considering the New engine). There should only one (I honestly don't care which as long as well done).
I won't, probably. It might make the combat Broken.

[NRieh]

 

Yeah, no. They killed unlimited instant healing in order to be able to better balance the combat and make it so that not every interaction is a potential party wipe and yet can still be meaningful.

How is 'cast shields&barriers  +drink potions' more meaningful than playing with a CD-ed healing spells? Also, what does it have to do with the potential wipe? People wipe with healers too, you know. Having a healer does not guarantee one anything, one still has to use his brains and follow the tactics. 

 

Also, seeing words 'balanced combat' referred to the single-player is kinda strange. Yeah, it makes sense to avoid both player oneshoting his\her enemies and mobs oneshoting the player. That one is obvious.

 

But changing reactive healing (healing spells) to proactive (barriers, procs, HOTs) does not actually 'balance' anything per se. Balance is when  players can equally success with whichever strategy and playstyle they prefer. Be it healing, shielding, dex-tanking, mage\rogue non-tank parties etc.  

[jtav]

How is 'cast shields&barriers  +drink potions' more meaningful than playing with a CD-ed healing spells? Also, what does it have to do with the potential wipe? People wipe with healers too, you know. Having a healer does not guarantee one anything, one still has to use his brains and follow the tactics. 
 
Also, seeing words 'balanced combat' referred to the single-player is kinda strange. Yeah, it makes sense to avoid both player oneshoting his\her enemies and mobs oneshoting the player. That one is obvious.
 
But changing reactive healing (healing spells) to proactive (barriers, procs, HOTs) does not actually 'balance' anything per se. Balance is when  players can equally success with whichever strategy and playstyle they prefer. Be it healing, shielding, dex-tanking, mage\rogue non-tank parties etc.

Right now, we have a binary. Either the character is downed or the fight doesn't effect them at all once it's over. So the fight has to either be able to cause a total party wipe or it's trivial. Now they can desugn encounters to only do a bit of damage.

[sylvanaerie]

I get that some people feel alienated about not being able to play a healer, but I really think the reactions have been overblown. Bioware didn't do this out of some malign desire to deprive you of healing spells, they're experimenting with a new approach to combat and encounter design, completely changing how combat must be approached. There's more risk now, you can't rush in half cocked and spam healing spells to get through it. The focus on attrition forces you to think and weigh your option when you see an enemy on the horizon. To those saying,"But healing spells should be an optional play style!" I can only say that it would completely destroy the intent of the system by taking away the attrition aspect. If anything, I'm thrilled that Bioware is so willing to experiment between installments (Unlike quite a few video game franchises these days) even if it does bring in calls of "But it was PERFECT before!!!!!" (Though it never was, Not that anyone is saying that here).

As for the RP complaint, I'll admit that one holds water. It does keep you from RPing a healing character, but there are always limits to roleplaying, healers just happen to be one of them this time. In exchange you get things like necromancer, rift mage, new rogue specializations and builds, ect. If you still want something along those lines, you can focus your character on barriers and buffs.

I'll admit, this doesn't quite fit the lore, but I'm quite willing to accept story/gameplay segregation on this point if the results are satisfactory.

I suppose what I'm saying is, try the new system, then decide whether the loss of healing spells is such a terrible thing.

 

I understand why it was done.  Combat has me nervous since I am unsure if I will be able to adjust to these changes without spending 75% of my game time backtracking just to recuperate and restock.  I'm still willing to try.  I've altered my RP for my first Inquisitor to adjust to this new system. 

There are five stages of 'grief'.  Any loss can produce this state, from divorce to death.  It feels to me like I'm mourning my favorite character, and I still haven't gotten through the anger stage.  I'll get over it, it's just a game.  

 

And in the meantime, having people tell me 'suck it up, buttercup, focus heal is your "new heal spell"' just fans that anger.

[Heimdall]

Not... really. Almost all the mage specializations consist mostly of spells that had been usable without a specialization in previous games. And barriers/buffs aren't the same thing at all.

I wasn't aware we had that information, link?

[NRieh]

So They should've created to different combat and encounter systems?

Have you seen the difference list between Neverwinter Nights 'easy' and 'difficult'? Take a look if you haven't.

 

They had obviously managed to pull it off somehow. And it had nothing to do with 'different combat systems' and 'no healing spells for you today, sorry'.  

[Dunbartacus]

I wasn't aware we had that information, link?

exaggeration, stone-fist and a spell that may be similar to firestorm is in rift mage and walking bomb is assumed to be in necromancer.

[In Exile]

As for the RP complaint, I'll admit that one holds water. It does keep you from RPing a healing character, but there are always limits to roleplaying, healers just happen to be one of them this time. In exchange you get things like necromancer, rift mage, new rogue specializations and builds, ect. If you still want something along those lines, you can focus your character on barriers and buffs.

I'll admit, this doesn't quite fit the lore, but I'm quite willing to accept story/gameplay segregation on this point if the results are satisfactory.

I suppose what I'm saying is, try the new system, then decide whether the loss of healing spells is such a terrible thing.

 

I would give any weight to this complaint if previous DA games reacted or even recognized that the PC had healing magic. But they do not. 

 

So there's no basis to the RP complaint, any more than it would be to say that the absence of curse of mortality affects RP. 

[Heimdall]

And in the meantime, having people tell me 'suck it up, buttercup, focus heal is your "new heal spell"' just fans that anger.

Not my intent, sorry if you took it that way

[sylvanaerie]

Not my intent, sorry if you took it that way

 

No, not you.  Someone else on the boards.