I'm pretty sure you don't get any. Only the attributes you receive from passives and gear. Doesn't each level up only give you an ability point?
The game places one for you, to make sure you don't ruin your entire playthrough by placing it in the wrong spot. And you get a spell\ability each level.
FYI, i was led to beleive the same thing, but it's passives that give attribute bonuses, not actives.
Not sure that makes any difference to be honest. Passive abilities seem to denote a general improvement in related skills through practice. Even more reason for attribute gains as a 'passive improvement'.
The problem is, the game does nothing to suggest it isn't a linear scale. The game does nothing to suggest strength can go below 0. Sure, you can attempt to find loopholes and explanations for it, but ulitmately there's no evidence for them in the game. It is absurd.
Not that I fundamentally have a problem with it being absurd. It's a gameplay mechanic. It's there to provide an interesting experience and to allow the player to feel increasingly powerful over the course of the game. It's an abstraction to add to playability. Which is fine. Changing over to stat customisation primarily on equipment is much the same, a gameplay decision. Neither have any real basis in anything other than gamplay.
And as such, when people complain about the change because they don't like the gameplay implications, I don't mind - personally, I don't really see the difference in terms of gameplay, but that's just me (I'm not saying I'm in favour of this change - in truth, I don't really see the pont of it, but the actual impact is likely to be negilgable so I don't really object). But when they point out a gameplay abstraction is ridiculous from lore or RP reasons while simultaneously defending an equally ridiculous abstraction, I just laugh.
It's much like the healing threads. Apparently DA:O having lore breaking healing is fine, but DA:I being possibly lore breaking in different way is not.
DA:I isn't possbily lorebreaking. It goes way beyond the bits in the original game that was lore breaking.
Quoting from The World of Thedas. "Using magic to teleport is impossible". Next one. "Magic items can't do things magic can't do".
So yeah...Varric's teleporting device is what exactly?
And it should be up to the players. People thought DA:O was fun, Kotor, BG1-2, Planescape, Ultima 1-7, Might and Magic 1-8. Tons of games. All of these let the player make those choices. Nothing got done automatically because te devs feared the players would screw up or make a mistake.
Seriously? If I got a game and made a mistake because I didn't fully understand the system and then the game became extremely frustrating/unplayable, I wouldn't enjoy it. That sort of system rewards the elite who fully understand said system but heavily punishes new players, not a good strategy.
..or "do I want to use a sword, or an axe, or a mace.."
and you have to make those decision based on what? You have to guess. It's not a tactical decision. It's not a complicated choice. It's random. If the game design doesn't clearly differentiate between a sword or an axe or a mace, for me it's pointless. Unless there's a skill tree dedicated to sword fighting and another for axe and another for mace, I don't really care. I want meaningful choices.
Seriously? If I got a game and made a mistake because I didn't fully understand the system and then the game became extremely frustrating/unplayable, I wouldn't enjoy it. That sort of system rewards the elite who fully understand said system but heavily punishes new players, not a good strategy.
DA is so simplified now it hardly takes much thought to master it.
Speaking for myself though, but if I make a mistake in a game I just try again. Multiple saves helps.
Seriously? If I got a game and made a mistake because I didn't fully understand the system and then the game became extremely frustrating/unplayable, I wouldn't enjoy it. That sort of system rewards the elite who fully understand said system but heavily punishes new players, not a good strategy.
I don't think the system depicted for DA:I favorizes a class of players. Experienced people will have more understanding of the gear and will be able to craft perfect items. Other players will still get to the end of the game without being frustrated by the level up mechanics
and you have to make those decision based on what? You have to guess. It's not a tactical decision. It's not a complicated choice. It's random. If the game design doesn't clearly differentiate between a sword or an axe or a mace, for me it's pointless. Unless there's a skill tree dedicated to sword fighting and another for axe and another for mace, I don't really care. I want meaningful choices.
Different armour penetration.
DA:I isn't possbily lorebreaking. It goes way beyond the bits in the original game that was lore breaking.
Quoting from The World of Thedas. "Using magic to teleport is impossible". Next one. "Magic items can't do things magic can't do".
So yeah...Varric's teleporting device is what exactly?
An example of why gameplay is not equal to lore.
I don't think the system depicted for DA:I favorizes a class of players. Experienced people will have more understanding of the gear and will be able to craft perfect items. Other players will still get to the end of the game without being frustrated by the level up mechanics
If people get frustrated easily by leveling up, they are playing the wrong genre of games.
DA:I isn't possbily lorebreaking. It goes way beyond the bits in the original game that was lore breaking.
Quoting from The World of Thedas. "Using magic to teleport is impossible". Next one. "Magic items can't do things magic can't do".
So yeah...Varric's teleporting device is what exactly?
A gameplay abstraction 
But I was specifically referring to healing with that line. DA:I's lack of healing is no more lore breaking than DA:O's prevalence of it. Yet apparently one is acceptable and the other is not.
Same with the attribute increasing mechanics. Stat increase on level up is a gamplay abstraction, nothing more. As is making it pre-set and switching the customisation over to equipment. But apparently one abstraction is acceptable and one is not.
If you're against abstractions and "lore breaking" fine, but complain about both sides, the old and the new.
I am fairly sure you will say a lot more about it.
An example of why gameplay is not equal to lore.
Clearly. It also is an example of how the lore in the game is now utterly pointless.
I don't think the system depicted for DA:I favorizes a class of players. Experienced people will have more understanding of the gear and will be able to craft perfect items. Other players will still get to the end of the game without being frustrated by the level up mechanics
I agree with you. Games should be accessible for all rather than riddled with a thousand traps to snare new players.
and you have to make those decision based on what? You have to guess. It's not a tactical decision. It's not a complicated choice. It's random. If the game design doesn't clearly differentiate between a sword or an axe or a mace, for me it's pointless. Unless there's a skill tree dedicated to sword fighting and another for axe and another for mace, I don't really care. I want meaningful choices.
And I want choices. Which it seems there are less, and less, and less of as of DAI.
I can hang curtains in Skyhold of ten different types and add stats to my armor, but I can't choose what I want to wear (it's restricted by class), what kind of weapon I want to use (also restricted by class), or how many of my abilities I want to use (Didn't choose something you really need in those eight slots? Feel free to reload and do that battle over again).
I agree with you. Games should be accessible for all rather than riddled with a thousand traps to snare new players.
Overly simplified games tend to end up generic, and are never considered classics.
Overly simplified games tend to end up generic, and are never considered classics.
On the other hand, complexity for the sake of complexity adds nothing to a game.
If people get frustrated easily by leveling up, they are playing the wrong genre of games.
aren't you already? 
Different armour penetration
I think you aren't reading the previous messages. We're talking about weapon proficiencies in BG where you have to commit to a particular weapon.
Now that you mention it. Isn't it better that things like armour penetration are gear based and not level based? There's so many more choices that are available because stats are gear based. You can just swap it out. Unless there's specific skill trees for each weapon, there's no point in a weapon proficiency system where they force you to decide on which weapon you want to specialise in at the very beginning where you don't have the proper knowledge.
Seriously? If I got a game and made a mistake because I didn't fully understand the system and then the game became extremely frustrating/unplayable, I wouldn't enjoy it. That sort of system rewards the elite who fully understand said system but heavily punishes new players, not a good strategy.
And that is sort of a problem here. Nowadays most players don't have any patience / don't have time ... I don't know why, it is not for me to judge them. But because of that games are getting simplier and simplier. Not many wants to spent some time to learn about the game, its mechanics etc .. etc ...
All I can say ( or rather show ) is this. Compare those 2 cRPGs manuals and fiugure out the rest by yourself.
And I want choices. Which it seems there are less, and less, and less of as of DAI.
I can hang curtains in Skyhold of ten different types and add stats to my armor, but I can't choose what I want to wear (it's restricted by class), what kind of weapon I want to use (also restricted by class), or how many of my abilities I want to use (Didn't choose something you really need in those eight slots? Feel free to reload and do that battle over again).
Even Diablo 3 has more options than DA:I now, actually. In that game you can actually equip whatever weapon you want to each character. Even dual-wield.
Clearly. It also is an example of how the lore in the game is now utterly pointless.
Seriously? If we were being totally pedantic about it we might as well enforce Fallout: New Vegas's hardcore mode on everybody and have them worry about food and water etc. and healing should have to be done by a doctor or healing mage and I could go on but I can't be bothered. Gameplay is supposed to be fun but tying it to lore would be ridiculously stupid. Lore is not pointless, it's something to appreciate seperate from gameplay.
Different armour penetration
I think you aren't reading the previous messages. We're talking about weapon proficiencies in BG where you have to commit to a particular weapon.
Now that you mention it. Isn't it better that things like armour penetration are gear based and not level based? There's so many more choices that are available because stats are gear based. You can just swap it out. Unless there's specific skill trees for each weapon, there's no point in a weapon proficiency system where they force you to decide on which weapon you want to specialise in at the very beginning where you don't have the proper knowledge.
aren't you already?
No I am frustrated about a game leveling up for me.
I think you aren't reading the previous messages. We're talking about weapon proficiencies in BG where you have to commit to a particular weapon.
Now that you mention it. Isn't it better that things like armour penetration are gear based and not level based? There's so many more choices that are available because stats are gear based. You can just swap it out. Unless there's specific skill trees for each weapon, there's no point in a weapon proficiency system where they force you to decide on which weapon you want to specialise in at the very beginning where you don't have the proper knowledge.
You can specialize in more than one. + putting a pint or two in other weapons is smart. Some creatures are immune to slashing weapons etc, and some immune to blunt weapons.
Retour en haut
