109 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

Both. I will do a playthrough as a mage and a playthrough as an archer

[Frogtoad51]

Thanks for the feedback you all. I've decided to go with the archer because the archer has less abilities to choose from and it will be simpler and easier to play effectively for my first time. Feel free to keep the debate going as long as you want however.

[Sir DeLoria]

Also: anything you can do mage can do better. etc.

I could point out how incredibly flawed that statement is, but eh.

[KainD]

I could point out how incredibly flawed that statement is, but eh.

 

Nah, not even in the slightest. 

[RobRam10]

I could point out how incredibly flawed that statement is, but eh.

HERESY!

[Sir DeLoria]

Nah, not even in the slightest.

Who can do more on the bench, the Rock or some scrawny mage?

HERESY!

Begone Tevinter heathen!

[herkles]

FIFY

 

Also: anything you can do mage can do better. etc.

 

So mages are better at the following

 

• losing
• dying
• getting lost
• being stupid
• not knowing how to ride a horse
• getting sick

[Tevinter Soldier]

archer is just a fancy way to say Mundane.

[-TC1989-]

archer is just a fancy way to say Mundane.

 

And by going by the last few posts I've read... Mage is a fancy way of saying arrogant.

[Tevinter Soldier]

And by going by the last few posts I've read... Mage is a fancy way of saying arrogant.

 

you say that likes its a bad thing.

[-TC1989-]

you say that likes its a bad thing.

 

Well an arrogant mage typically leads to worse things, but normally it can be ignored.

[KainD]

Who can do more on the bench, the Rock or some scrawny mage?

 

The mage, can lift more and without touching it. 

 

And by going by the last few posts I've read... Mage is a fancy way of saying arrogant.

 

More like proud. 

[d1ta]

This was also a difficult one for me. I've been waiting for a long time to play as a Dalish mage, but then 'Archer' became a class of its own (and rightfully so) and my head began to ache.

I toss a coin and mage it is

Or maybe i'll just do 2 PTs instead, incase I can't decide, LoL (more likely to happen)

[Tevinter Soldier]

Well an arrogant mage typically leads to worse things, but normally it can be ignored.

 

being arrogant can make you mundane?   

[KainD]

being arrogant can make you mundane?   

 

[SebastianP]

 

So mages are better at the following

 

• losing
• dying
• getting lost
• being stupid
• not knowing how to ride a horse
• getting sick

 

 

Welp, looks like I'm a mage. 

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Be a mage. 

 

Why ? If the recent gameplay videos are anything to go by, it is that rogues and warriors have been mage-fied. Their abilities are too over-the-top and flashy. 

 

Also, some of the archer abilities are quite ridiculous. One of them is the leaping arrow shot. I don't see how a dwarf, for example, jump that far and that high backward. Elves with their lithe frames, I can accept, but a stoic & stocky dwarf or better yet, a giant Qunari ? 

 

Furthermore, being an archer railroads you into fighting exclusively from far. Most of the passives in the archery tree involves the archer being further away from the target. 

 

There are no such restrictions with the mage, especially if you go the route of Knight Enchanter.

 

Archer Rogue is a powerful one-trick-pony DPS character with perhaps a bit of flexibility from specializations. 

 

Mage is a flexible, do-whatever-you-want-because-magic CC or AOE or single target fighter. 

 

Lastly, the Inquisition team already have two archer rogues, Varric and Sera. If you want to be a rogue, dual daggers is better. If not, be a mage, specifically, a non-specialized mage. That way, you can make the other 3 mages on the Inquisition team as hardcore specialists with you being the master of the four schools of magic + Mark of the Rift. 

[-TC1989-]

More like proud. 

 

The mage running around singing "Anything you can do, I can do better" makes you proud? Tough to argue with that coolness. 

 

 

being arrogant can make you mundane?   

 

Arrogance does have that dull/boring approach, true. 

[ElementalFury106]

Since you were set on being a warrior for so long, Knight Enchanter Mage sounds right up your alley. Less tanky of course, but you get a lot of versatility. Being able to be a ranged character with AOE/support abilities while also being a close quarters fighter

 

But everyone seems to be giving a good idea for you. Tempest Archer is a hybrid of the two things you want.

[Reptillius]

Pick Mage then you can have Varric making his usual witty banter as your companion.  It should be even more fun with Cassandra along to tank.

[Sir DeLoria]

The mage, can lift more and without touching it.

Uh yeah, except that's not the same thing. Point is the mage is physically weaker.

There's humdreds more examples: a swordsman is better at swordsmanship than any mage, an archer is better at archery than any mage, a smith is better at smithing than any mage etc etc.

Yes, in theory a mage could learn one of those trades, but then he'd be a terrible mage by not honing his magic skills.

[Tevinter Soldier]

Uh yeah, except that's not the same thing. Point is the mage is physically weaker.

There's humdreds more examples: a swordsman is better at swordsmanship than any mage, an archer is better at archery than any mage, a smith is better at smithing than any mage etc etc.

Yes, in theory a mage could learn one of those trades, but then he'd be a terrible mage by not honing his magic skills.

 

A mage is Physically weaker only in game play, there's nothing in the lore that prevents a Mage from being in shape and fit.

 

as for the rest, it's like comparing a rifle man to an Armed Fighting Vehicle. Superior fire power = win.

they gimp mages in gameplay simply to balance builds.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Why play such inferior classes? Play something that can at least take a hit (and no, Knight Enchanters are NOT going to be particularly tanky).

[Tevinter Soldier]

Why play such inferior classes? Play something that can at least take a hit (and no, Knight Enchanters are NOT going to be particularly tanky).

 

shock horror some people don't find standing around slowly swinging an axe into someones face particularly challenging or fun long term.

Some people would rather lay waste to multiple enemies and let the grunts mop up.

[Will-o'-wisp]

If you like both, you could decide based on your character's Background, how you want them to be treated and what their position on certain ingame conflicts is, etc. Also think about how to build your party and which companions you want to take with you the most like the others suggested.

 

Are you playing human? Then you have to decide between being a noble in a devout andrastian Family as archer or being from the Ostwick Tower from where you recently had to flee as a mage.

 

I very rarely play as mage cause I don't like them as much as warriors and rogues in terms of combat and because I kinda grew an aversion towards them, being pretty pro-templar and all that. Also their problems have been discussed to death already and I prefer a playing a "normal" person. Lore-reasons basically.