God forbid you actually have to specialize a certain char. The good thing about having 3 mages is that they can each specialize into something else. You can pick and choose which mage to bring along that suits the style of play you need to actively beat the baddies. Its a good thing.
Yes and in the previous 2 games we could use 2 specs.
Sure you can, use up 8 potions, fast travel back to camp and get more for free.
Spamming.
@efd731: I could totally be wrong - but I'm fairly certain the regular potions are free.
I think you'll need elf root for things like the healing grenades or the regen. potions.
Lore is a weak excuse for making imbalanced classes. They wrote the lore. They can disregard it.
Which it looks like they're doing.
"Imbalanced" is a weird term in a party based game. The classes don't have to be point-by-point balanced in any way, so long as they all contribute to the party's overall success.
"regular warrior" is, well relative. Also, "regular warrior" in Thedas quite easily can mean something different from earth, seeing as you can even be a ravager in DA, same with tamplar and ect. I use Batman as an example, sure "normal" human, but human perfected with a large range of abilities and tools at his disposal. So I think maybe, you are looking at this purely from a "I'm a mage" vantage, specially where you guys were from my perspective, excessively focused on prior to this.
I excluded Templar and Ravager for that very reason. Within these specs, there could be a wider range of abilities (and animations). Also, yet again, "I'm a mage." doesn't make any sense in this game. You're not just controlling one character, you're controlling a party. I'll likely be controlling a mage, one or two rogues and one or two warriors. It is unnecessary for these characters to have the same amount of versatility or require the same amount of maintenance due to their number of active abilities, as the only thing that counts is how much fun controlling the party as a whole is.
spells and skill suggestions: http://forum.bioware...ll-suggestions/
Got any ideas? Then go there ^.
as the only thing that counts is how much fun controlling the party as a whole is.
This is a subjective claim as different people have different playstyles and different reasons for playing one class or another. Parity is important because if you overload mages with the most options and versatility then there are less compelling reasons for actively controlling a different class. If the developers are going to give you the option of being a warrior or rogue, then there should be compelling gameplay reasons to play them and that does include balance against playing a mage.
These are design decisions with a generic player base in mind, not just people who like to play mages or micromanage or switch around characters a lot.
You're arguing from the perspective of your own playstyle, which is fine, but not representative or (to me) compelling enough to justify the devs favoring mages with more abilities and versatility than rogues/warriors.
"Imbalanced" is a weird term in a party based game. The classes don't have to be point-by-point balanced in any way, so long as they all contribute to the party's overall success.
I excluded Templar and Ravager for that very reason. Within these specs, there could be a wider range of abilities (and animations). Also, yet again, "I'm a mage." doesn't make any sense in this game. You're not just controlling one character, you're controlling a party. I'll likely be controlling a mage, one or two rogues and one or two warriors. It is unnecessary for these characters to have the same amount of versatility or require the same amount of maintenance due to their number of active abilities, as the only thing that counts is how much fun controlling the party as a whole is.
It makes perfect sense, people have biases to the classes they pick for their PC. Beyond that, that doesn't address this idea of yours that mages need X amount of spells to be lore friendly, I dont find that to be the case at all. Obviously more is better, in terms of choices, but they only have time for so much, and focusing more on the non mages so it is more congruent with mages only makes sense to me. It makes lore sense that mages in game cant cast 20 different spells from all sorts of different schools, all in a single battle.
I see the same options are available, yet perhaps with a different flavour.
Glyph of paralysis (DAO and da2) - frost glyph in inquisition.
They function with the same purpose, only they look different.
There is a role playing element to this that you're missing, and BW most probably.
I haven't read to much about mage spells and abilities, but based on the complaints in this thread, I don't think I'll have too much of a problem...
In DA:O and DA2, I almost always played my mage characters an a AoE machine. So if that's what they're best at in DA:I, I'm happy.
In DA:O, I thought there were more spells than necessary. There were a handful of useful ones that you go every playthrough, and a bunch of useless ones that you either had to unlock on the way, or that you just started grabbing after you got all the good ones cos you had to do something when you level up.
In DA2, upgrades were a nice change, I had to grab less useless spells and just upgraded my useful ones instead. But I always felt like there were certain spells, like the ice ones, that you were "supposed" to take, since they worked with cross-class combos, and that if I wasn't taking them, I was doing it wrong.
I'm hoping that DA:I having a smaller spell selection will alleviate a lot of those problems.
I see the same options are available, yet perhaps with a different flavour.
Glyph of paralysis (DAO and da2) - frost glyph in inquisition.
They function with the same purpose, only they look different.
And with the introduction of wall spells, we've gotten more options than in previous dragon age games.
Also, certain upgrades and passives really affect the way a Mage 'build' will play .
So I'm not bummed out at all.
I look forward to a cannon Mage that burns his own barriers to empower his fire spells or a support type Mage that can freeze enemies solid, dispel magics and revive the party with spirit magic. Or maybe I will be knight enchanter with the storm passive that shocks enemies that try to attack when I'm using spirit blade, or invest in the winter tree for the ice armor passive that gives me damage mitigation when I've frozen /chilled the enemy around me.
Yup, to me this is just a case of mages in previous games getting an incredible amount of attention vs non casters and now that it is coming into balance(even more balanced with the lore) people are now angry they lost spells(understandable to a point). I mean, I get it, less magic schools to choose from is sad to see, when you know all the potential schools and spells, but a new engine + equal focus this time around on classes(thank God) and you are not going to be able to get your 30-70 spells.
I personally like the changes, since it makes mages feel more fitting in the setting, since specializations and focusing of schools seems to matter more, now. Seems much more lore friendly to me.
Yup, to me this is just a case of mages in previous games getting an incredible amount of attention vs non casters and now that it is coming into balance(even more balanced with the lore) people are now angry they lost spells(understandable to a point). I mean, I get it, less magic schools to choose from is sad to see, when you know all the potential schools and spells, but a new engine + equal focus this time around on classes(thank God) and you are not going to be able to get your 30-70 spells.
I personally like the changes, since it makes mages feel more fitting in the setting, since specializations and focusing of schools seems to matter more, now. Seems much more lore friendly to me.
Nope, not bummed at all. Have a tissue for your issue.
I do think there's a bit too many elemental spells, but on the other hand they have diverse effects, such as walls of ice or that delightful lightning spell that creates an orb which yanks back enemies trying to leave a zone. We also don't know the specifics of spec abilities, Rift Mage seems akin to Force Mage and we know Necromancer has Walking Bomb, so it's likely it has assorted curses and the like.
Origins had a lot of spells, true, but lots of them became obsolete as you moved up the tree. My Mage Warden in Origins had a spellbar nearly full, but I used, what, 8 at most? Fireball, Glyph of Paralysis, Walking Bomb, Heal, Stonefist, Cone of Cold, Crushing Prison, Mass Paralysis, I think that's it. At least half the spells in Origins were filler, if not more. I'd rather have spells that stay useful all game long and change depending on gear and passives.
Yep, 9 for me. I chose 2 of each element and then heal for my mage. I found a lot of spells to be redundent.
Actually, I'm excited to hear that there's going to be such an elemental focus in DA:I - it's my favourite path.
Played a mage on my first playthrough, didn't feel constrained in spell choice, I went pure damage and it was a blast.
I think the question is what options other than pure damage will there be?
I mean, my mage in DAO was a spirit/entropy specialist. Not much on the damage department, but great for debuffing and party support.
I haven't done enough research on the mage spells and abilities yet. I guess I was leaving some things to be surprised by. I wasn't aware of the number of spells in each game, but it is interesting to see the difference.
I'm not counting out the mage effectiveness yet. As I can't really tell exactly what's going on in the videos that are posted for DA:I, but I can say that every video I've seen has included a mage. I'm guessing they're very effective in combat and can really keep the party going when things are done right. I think the DA team worked a bit on balance this time around. Both DA:O and DA2 I was able to pretty much use any combination of classes in a party. This time around it looks like each class is very useful for specific situations. That's cool. It may make things a little more challenging, but with the difficulty choices, it shouldn't be too bad.
Someone mentioned some of the previous spells on earlier DA games, some of the spells did things that might not be so necessary. Such as the weapon enchantments. I know they had enchantments before, but you can also upgrade your weapons and gear with better materials which make you better equipped for battle.
I know a lot of you are a lot more informed than I am, but I still think that you need to give it a go before giving it a thumbs down. I don't think they would have released the game with broken mage abilities and spells. I wish I could remember some of the things Mike Laidlaw has said in the videos while playing mage. He's made some really good points about each class and their usefulness.
My first play through will be mage. I'm still thinking it will be good.
Well all classes will be needed for more than just fighting for opening paths ect... warriors can break down weak walls,rogues have lockpicking,and mages can open portals thru certain areas and raise broken bridges so you can cross them ect.
If you've got this attitude I think you should readjust your expectations for what mages are compared to warriors and rogues.
In D&D, and therefore Baldur’s Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and DA:O (which was originally designed to use the D&D engine), mages were supposed to be a class with far more variety in their abilities, and a large non-combat role. Fighters/Warriors were supposed to have much more limited and simple gameplay – indeed in D&D 2nd edition they basically just made basic melee attacks over and over.
That’s why DA:O still had warriors who were mostly just levelling up into passive and sustained abilities, with the odd special attack, whereas mages had dozens of spells to choose from.
Dragon Age’s gameplay philosophy has changed drastically since those days. In DA2, Bioware made it clear that they wanted each of the classes to feel like they have multiple abilities that have complex effects on the battlefield. Each one should be as interesting and rewarding to play as the other.
The fact that in DA:I mages have the same number of talents/spells as the other classes is a sign that they’re fulfilling their design spec. If you’re only interested in mages if they are considerably more complex and varied than the other classes, I’m not sure you’re going to be satisfied any time soon, because game design is moving in the direction of making sure all classes are equally complicated and interesting.
There is a role playing element to this that you're missing, and BW most probably.
I think the question is what options other than pure damage will there be?
I mean, my mage in DAO was a spirit/entropy specialist. Not much on the damage department, but great for debuffing and party support.
Would be my guess.
I think the question is what options other than pure damage will there be?
I mean, my mage in DAO was a spirit/entropy specialist. Not much on the damage department, but great for debuffing and party support.
By, instead of increasing what the other classes can do, reducing what mages can?
For example, if we had a spell like hex glyph, that paralysed an enemy, would not bother me that it wasn't a creation or primal spell. It has a purpose. And hey it sounds cool.
I find it interesting that you call yourself the mage guy yet you are ok with restricting the role playing options of playing different types of mages. By removing the role playing options they are taking the game away from being a role playing game and closer to shooter territory.
What spec. and trees did you use predominately?
Spec'd as a rift mage, and went deep into the lightning tree.
The awesome thing about the previous games is all the mage spell mods they've had. If the vanilla game doesn't have cool things, I bet someone's gonna add some awesome abilities.
Retour en haut