77 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I definitely prefer DA2's way of having the companions have their own specializations. That said, at least they have their own twist on the specializations and won't be the ones teaching you them. The whole "Let me teach you in seconds what took me years" approach in DAO never made sense to me. 

[IVI4RCU5]

I prefer the companion specs. I mean, say I want to play a Templar S&S Warrior in Inquisition. Well, Cassandra already does that. If I'm doing it, then I'm taking her duty from her and thus have no reason to bring her along.

 

Alternately, she does it better than I do, and makes me obsolete.

 

I'd love to bring characters based on just their personality, but in this case it would essentially cost me a party slot. I can't bring a DPS-er or a mezzer because that slot is taken up by Cassandra, who contributes nothing useful to the party. With the specs, the companions had their own little tweaks or skills or stuff that made them just a little different from Hawke, so even if both Merrill and my Hawke were DPS-ers, we did it in different ways.

So...switch your build to a Two-handed Templar whenever you want to bring Cass along.  Alternatively, build Cass into a Two-Handed Templar from the get-go.  Or have Cass take skills from a tree other than Templar.  This isn't really an issue that you can't easily work around in a number of ways. 

[Chernaya]

The only thing at all that bothers me about this, is that whatever class I pick, I'll probably never want to take along the matching companion. That's not too big of a deal to me though, since I plan on having multiple playthroughs of different classes.

[Kieran G.]

it's all a matter of opinion. 

 

At least this time like DA:O we know how we got the spec instead of magically learning it with no training.

[Gannayev of Dreams]

I kind of hoped the Inquisitor would at least have access to a tree built around utilizing the Rift energy that gets trapped in their hand.  Something not tied to a class, but just to the fact you are a unique entity.  I thought I saw something like that in one of the streams but can't recall.

[aeoncs]

I don't think that unique companion specializations would have worked out in DA:I, considering that its class-policy is basically: "anyone can be anything".

Each Warrior can be a tank or a damage dealer, each Rogue ranged or melee, each Mage an elemental/arcane glass-canon or a defensive supporter - by giving them unique, tailor-made talent trees, you'd indirectly force them into certain roles and I very much prefer the freedom of choosing who I want as my tank, my archer and so on.

I'm sure it would have been possible, but extremely hard to properly implement.

[Ianamus]

It should fix some of the issues I had with Dragon Age 2, like  Aveline always being a better tank than Hawke simply because her unique tanking abilities far surpassed theirs or anyone elses.

[Reptillius]

I'm not entirely against the unique abilities. But I'd rather have the DA:O style than the DA:II style with that said.  Each companion loss various "open" trees and I couldn't always understand why they lost them.  For example. You were often stuck with Anders if you really needed a healer for an encounter or in general.  Potions were entirely too slow. Your only other mage npc doesn't have the Creation Tree and no real explanation why even though she has other far more damaging trees.  And Anders is the only one besides the PC with a group heal on top of all that.

 

 

Others special trees were just amalgamation trees that tended to come with the expense of any real customization.  Fenris is actually a fine example of this.  He has a wonderful tree that could be used in lots of ways but he loses all "open" trees that could have potentially made him useful as a tank making him nothing but a dps warrior at all times so there was no room for him to grow ability wise really.

 

Isabela and Varric in some ways had the most unique trees but Varric's is a requirement to truly make him useful because he needs all the attack speed he can get as well as the rapid attacks.   And Isabela's you either don't touch really or you gimp her as a rogue in some respects because it's got quite a bit of tanking but she's not suited to be more than an off tank and you have to give up the dual wield rogues boosts to attacking the backs of opponents and put points you might not put into various CC stuff and such to really make her useful. She's damned good when you do but that's rather counter for a rogue.

[Greenface21]

 

How do you not get it? Having a character with an ability and having YOUR character with an ability are two different things. Thats like saying we could play as a qunari just because Sten was in the party

 

I don't see it as two things but a combination of a greater whole. My party set up determines my battle tactics, it's not only my personal character's skills and stats. How does a companion having an ability prevent me from using it? If i can use it why does it matter if its on my character's ability slot or a companions? It's all available at the push of a button. 

 

Speaking in terms of gameplay mechanics you can play as a qunari in DAO. You can control him, modify his stats and armor etc... all his skills can be allocated into an ability slot same as the warden.

[SerCambria358]

 

I don't see it as two things but a combination of a greater whole. My party set up determines my battle tactics, it's not only my personal character's skills and stats. How does a companion having an ability prevent me from using it? If i can use it why does it matter if its on my character's ability slot or a companions? It's all available at the push of a button. 

 

Speaking in terms of gameplay mechanics you can play as a qunari in DAO. You can control him, modify his stats and armor etc... all his skills can be allocated into an ability slot same as the warden.

 

Can you really not understand the difference and intrigue in having a class that your character has learned. Never mind whether you care or not but to outright not understand it is just a bit dismissive. Having MY character be say a reaver (rather than just accepting that my companion is one) is just much more interesting in terms of the depth of my character.

 

As for Sten, no just no, Sten still has his own personality, his own class, his own background, which is not the point im driving at

[metatheurgist]

I hate game systems where NPCs have abilities I can't access. If the only way you can make a NPC unique is to give them unique abilities then it means your game system is boring (warrior, rogue, mage, only ).

[LaughingWolf]

I liked the DA:O way of each class having access to every skill tree, except they should make it so certain companions block trees (e.g. You can make Wynne use any school of Magic except blood magic because she refuses to)

[Gothfather]

I prefer the companion specs. I mean, say I want to play a Templar S&S Warrior in Inquisition. Well, Cassandra already does that. If I'm doing it, then I'm taking her duty from her and thus have no reason to bring her along.

 

Alternately, she does it better than I do, and makes me obsolete.

 

I'd love to bring characters based on just their personality, but in this case it would essentially cost me a party slot. I can't bring a DPS-er or a mezzer because that slot is taken up by Cassandra, who contributes nothing useful to the party. With the specs, the companions had their own little tweaks or skills or stuff that made them just a little different from Hawke, so even if both Merrill and my Hawke were DPS-ers, we did it in different ways.

Yeah I am not sure i agree with your line of thinking.

 

With just three classes and three roles with four party slots you are going to have overlap in your roles and classes. I don't think that makes someone obsolete just because someone else is doing the same role in the party doesn't mean they are obsolete.

[Kradus9]

They won't even have regular specializations like Origins?

[SmilesJA]

 

Their was a depth to DA:O that DA2 lost, part of that depth lost was their approach to companions. I for one like the fact that they are going more to the roots of Origins.

 

I hope Bioware won't forget the good parts of DA2.

[Lumix19]

I hope Bioware won't forget the good parts of DA2.

I hope not either. Sadly DA2's haters are very, very loud.

[Reptillius]

Actually you have 4 roles if your going for the perfectly balanced party because you'd have a tank, a melee dps, a ranged dps, and then a healer.  each likely with ways to help support their fellow party members... Or you could have 3 "pure classes" and one that is heavily involved with the buffing.  I've done that in DAO with a rogue thanks to the bard specialization, and if I'm going archery about it also the ranger spec for my personal preference.

 

And with as many companions as we have we simply can't take them all everywhere we go so it's easy to come up with combinations where you don't double up or if you wish you can choose to double up. I've made some interesting use to double tank parties before in low healing situations.  I've ping ponged a few very powerful enemies with well timed taunts in the past and isabela as an off-tank is actually one of my ways for getting around taking anders with me everywhere because dual tanking can usually last me through most normal and even some story fights without actually needing to worry about the occasional downing of a heal potion.  I just have to watch out more for that occasional lucky shot on a half health character.

 

  And with a somewhat limited number of skill slots that can be active at one time from the looks of it. It may be able to make two characters that "double up" completely different just because they are equipped with different abilities from the same trees.  Until we see a full list of our skills which I'm not sure they've really released. We can't be certain of that.

[Gothfather]

I hope Bioware won't forget the good parts of DA2.

 

 

I hope not either. Sadly DA2's haters are very, very loud.

 

It depends are what you mean by the good things. I completed origins maybe two dozen times and Da2 three times fully, once for each class, and I quit multiple games because I got bored. I found I was more slogging through the game to get to the end or try other story branches. It was a chore. DA:O was the polar opposite for me, it never felt like a chore and I rarely got bored even after playing it so many times.

 

I liked the voice protaganist but in all I can't think of one feature Da2 added other than voice protaganist that i felt was an improvement over DA:O. Me2 had lots of improved features over Me1.

 

What features of Da2 do you feel are superior to Da:O? I don't think the story was weak in DA2 in fact I think it was in some ways stronger that origins, I did however enjoy the Origins story a bit better because I enjoyed the game mechanics of origins more so playing was a more enjoyable experience.

[Moirin]

I did like the DA2 version of companion specializations better but I don't mind the current method either.

[Dracon525]

Firstly, I definitely prefered DA2's "unique" companion spec. style. I liked choosing/building my companions arounf THEIR skills, rather than changing them to fit MY needs. Too a degree, of course. You could still guide companions down different paths. It seemed like their specialization branches usually went 2 ways. Eg: Damager or Tank for Fenris, or Damager/Healer for Anders. The only thing getting in the way here was their weapon sets (what if I wanted to make Aveline a damager, but couldn't access 2-Handed skills?)

With Inquisition, however... Well, at the moment, we can't really tell. Whilst (most) companions seem to fit into one of the given specs (Cassandra = Templar, Dorian = Necromancer), that doesnt mean that their braching won't be different. Adding in being able to change weapon sets (and the aesthetic of changeable armour styles), i'm sure the DA:I companions will be versatile enough.

(TL:DR - DA2 specs were unique. DA:I should be fine)

With regards to party build and specializations, i've never really had a problem. I've also tended to take companions based on their personality, and how my protagonist would see them, first. Eg: My "evil" teams have been Morrigan, Zeveran and Shale/Loghain, and Anders, Fenris and Isabella. Within those choices, I then see, compared to my protag, how I can 'arrange' them. Eg: My "evil" Hawke was a debilitator, so I had Fenris set up as tank, Anders as healer and Isabella as damager. Whereas in other groups, Fenris and Anders have both been damagers. With DA:I I see this being even easier, given that we can swap weapons.

(I feel like this may be a jumble of nonsense, so forgive me if reading that gave you a headache)

[Eudaemonium]

I'm personally hoping that they will return to unique Specialisations in DA4. I can understand why they didn't do it in DA:I given the amount of other stuff they've done, but I hope it will make a return in future games now that they've already shifted to a new engine and created a large number of the assets (many of which will be re-used in future titles, I'd assume).

[Knight of Dane]

Unique specializations was a really good idea in DA2, will be sad if it doesn't actually continue. It made them slightly unique from each other in combat.

[mandro]

But they do have them, don't they? I remember in one of the gameplay trailers hearing them talk about uniqe specializations and how you still could still build them any way you wanted since these things were not locked to a combat style

[IVI4RCU5]

I just plan on Champion at first. Nothing unique about it to begin with.

 

Do we know anything at all about the Champion spec aside from the description?  AFAIK we've never seen the tree.  Can you link me to it if it's out there?

 

But they do have them, don't they? I remember in one of the gameplay trailers hearing them talk about uniqe specializations and how you still could still build them any way you wanted since these things were not locked to a combat style

None of the specializations will be tied to a weapon class, meaning that Sera, a Tempest, can be built either as an archer or a double dagger rogue, for example.  But the Inquisitor chooses a specialization from among those the companions use.