76 réponses à ce sujet

[Dubstob]

Read this and you'll probably think to yourself "Oh...so thats why staves do less dmg"

 

http://www.reddit.co...hanter_edition/

 

jesus. 

[godlike13]

Staves do Element damage. So i don't know, it probably balances out. We'll see i guess. Didn't know 2h weapons do AOE damage, thats pretty cool. 

[syllogism]

In addition to what has been said, most mage skills do elemental damage while rogue/warrior skills do physical damage. This should mean that mage skills penetrate armor and are subject only to possible elemental resistances (and vulnerabilities) and magic defense (there's also a generic melee defense stat), which should compensate a bit for the lower base damage.

[andy6915]

Staves do Element damage. So i don't know, it probably balances out. We'll see i guess. Didn't know 2h weapons do AOE damage, thats pretty cool. 

 

They did that in DA2 also. Even the one handed longswords did. That's not a change.

[lastpawn]

We'll have to see how this looks like in real time. On paper all we can say is that auto attacking with a staff is as effective as it looks. Not at all.

[Bronson]

Gee i wish people would stop quoting posters i have on my ignore list.

 

[lastpawn]

Read this and you'll probably think to yourself "Oh...so thats why staves do less dmg"

 

http://www.reddit.co...hanter_edition/

 

jesus. 

 

Lots of very optimistic assumptions in that link.

[Araedros]

sorry but do we know if the staff in the OP pic is the average staff of the game?

[Mythanar]

Ugh!  Mages regen mana MUCH faster than rogues and warriors regen stamina.   The game is designed such that warriors and rogues spend a larger portion of their time "auto-attacking" than mages.  Hence their skills hit harder but are used less often. 

Hmm. Can you point out video examples? I have looked around, and I am not seeing this, especially with regard to mages vs two-handed warriors. For example, take a look at the warrior combat gameplay footage,

at 1:18 to 1:22. There, Iron Bull (two-handed) regenerates two thirds of his stamina bar in three hits, in about 2 seconds.

 

In comparison, similarly leveled mages at

from 0:24 onwards, generate mana *significantly* slower, as their attacks do not generate mana at all and they have to rely on auto-generation.

[Mythanar]

And then you have attributes effecting attack which also plays a role in determining damage.

Agreed, but looking at the gear and skill trees, do you think mages will get more attribute points than warriors and rogues to compensate?

 

Quintessential mage DPS tree, Inferno, gives 6 Magic and 6 Willpower when unlocked. Warrior DPS tree, Two-handed, gives 12 strength when unlocked.

Double Daggers on rogue, when unlocked, gives 6 Dex and 6 Cun.

 

So yes, attributes will be effecting the damage output, but on that front, all classes seem to be pretty even.

[Silver Souls]

It's always been like this. Staves have been the weakest weapon type since Origins.

 

You're supposed to be casting spells as a mage, not autoattacking.

but auto attacking looks so cool 

[Mythanar]

sorry but do we know if the staff in the OP pic is the average staff of the game?

Well, it is a common staff of level 11 being compared with common greataxe level 11.

 

Let's look at another datapoint, starting weapons.

Here is a screenshot of starting mage, his autoattack does ~20 damage:

 

Indeed, his 250% damage skill, chain lightning, does more or less 50 damage:

 

So mage's starting staff is a ~20 damage weapon.

 

2H warrior starting autoattack is about 50 damage:

 

And his 200% skill (Mighty blow) does 96 damage:

 

So the warrior starting sword does ~2.5 times as much damage as staff. Consequently, starter warrior's autoattack does about the same damage as mage's chain lightning skill, even though chain lightning is a 250% weapon skill, and auto-attack is 100%.

 

Let me ask you this, I am sure you watched a video or two of gameplay footage. Have you seen staves with higher damage (or DPS for that matter) than two-handers? I've been keeping eye on this stuff, and I haven't.

[Araedros]

that doesn't seem very balanced, but again I haven't followed gameplay vids closesly.

I'm thinking that weapons have higher dps that armor mitigates this unlike elemental damage maybe?

[Emer Dareloth]

Isn't this how it's "suppose" to be though? What some of you are asking for is mages to be able to do the same if not more damage than a 2 H warrior but since he's a mage it would be from a distance... Warriors are SUPPOSE to be the bug damage dealers and front liners. Big risk comes big reward. You want to do the same damage with minimal risk of actually getting hit??

[mooferz]

I think mages are more support rather than pure damage dealers. They get crowd control, buffs/debuffs, and a bunch of AoE's. If their weapon damage was the same as a warrior's or rogue's, wouldn't that be a bit overpowered? I have read that knight enchanters are seemingly OP, but I have yet to see for myself. They do get mana regen, uber barriers, and heals though...

[In Exile]

I was trying to figure out why anyone would play anything other than a KE for the last few days lol. That 1000% dmg move on low cooldown, the fire doing insane %1600dmg and can add dot, ice 75-150% sec, KE spammable 300%. Oh and THREE Cooldown reduction passives. It seems they are more about spamming high weapon damage % spells with extreme control rather than auto-attack dmg.

Seems like this is the balance.

The KE may require a lot of micromanaging which makes it a costly investment vs. other less involved alternatives. Like the DAO rogue - it was never really worth the investment to micromanage it versus the mage.

[In Exile]

Mages typically deal damage over an area of effect more effectively than any other class (this may or may not be true in Inquisition, to be fair). They also tend to have a wealth of utility-based abilities, and all of that can be used from medium-long range. 2H Warriors, on the other hand, are at melee range at all times and have the SOLE purpose of dealing damage.

I don't know about you, but to me if a class can be effective at different things, one that focuses entirely on one of those purposes should be better than that class at that specific role.

Based on skill trees mages in DAI don't look to have much utility.

[bluebullets]

Isn't this how it's "suppose" to be though? What some of you are asking for is mages to be able to do the same if not more damage than a 2 H warrior but since he's a mage it would be from a distance... Warriors are SUPPOSE to be the bug damage dealers and front liners. Big risk comes big reward. You want to do the same damage with minimal risk of actually getting hit??

Yes. Mages are squishy. They throw out fireballs and die easy. They should be glass cannons. .
2h warriors wear heavy armor and typically go head to head. Most of their time would be spent dodging blocking and parrying..

Yes. A ranged mage should out damage a warrior. They're out of harms way throwing lightning and fire.
They should also die much easier than a warrior. Hence barrier and the risk of enemy assassins coming out to the back to kill your mages.

[Uccio]

Dragon age has systematically weakened mages to bring everyone on "equal footing", which is stupid since mages are supposed to be the most lethal class in most fantasy worlds.

[In Exile]

I have yet to take a look at the skill trees. If you're correct, BioWare did mess up on this front.

They have some utility but as I recall it's mainly status effects and CC. Nothing close to the buff bonanza of D&D or even DAO/DA2 casters. Though in DA most buffs didn't really matter based on opportunity cost.

[Father_Jerusalem]

One thread I read... "Waaaah, Knight Enchanters are too OP! Nerf them!"
 

Literally the next thread I read... "Waaaah. Mages suck for damage! Nobody's going to play a mage! They suck!"

 

 

And so it begins.

[Emer Dareloth]

Yes. Mages are squishy. They throw out fireballs and die easy. They should be glass cannons. .
2h warriors wear heavy armor and typically go head to head. Most of their time would be spent dodging blocking and parrying..

Yes. A ranged mage should out damage a warrior. They're out of harms way throwing lightning and fire.
They should also die much easier than a warrior. Hence barrier and the risk of enemy assassins coming out to the back to kill your mages.

Mages are squishy because they don't "need" heavy armor as they are most of the time out of harms way.  Of course in this game they CAN wear heavy armor and also have barrier.  You want them to also be the main damage dealers too?  To each his own I guess, but that seems OP to me.

[Emer Dareloth]

One thread I read... "Waaaah, Knight Enchanters are too OP! Nerf them!"
 

Literally the next thread I read... "Waaaah. Mages suck for damage! Nobody's going to play a mage! They suck!"

 

 

And so it begins.

Lol this ^^.  Everyone has their own opinion, and that's completely fine.  Allows for good discussion.