Only on Lv. 4, but I'm trying to see which will make the SnS more interesting. I've only use a few of Cass's templar abilities, Blackwall I never use, Bull is my awesome reaver
I'm also looking at it for RP purposes, both are pretty close for a human noble to pick
If you're look at it for RP purposes....
"It's good to be Champion!"
No but seriously that line almost singlehandedly convinced me to be Champion, definitely the coolest specialization dialogue for warriors. However I already have Cassandra in my party for RP purposes and am a 2H warrior, so I felt that Reaver would be the best option.
All that aside, with SnS, on normal, either build is very viable. Champion can make you an unkillable tank, SnS is already nigh unkillable regardless though, so if you want some more damage, particularly against demons+barriers, at the cost of literal invulnerability from two Champion skills, then Templar is a good tradeoff. Mind you that they have an AOE stun with an AOE Eldritch detonator.... so Templar can seriously lay down the hurt.
I feel like people talk a lot about Reaver (risk/reward playstyle, high DPS) and Champion (unkillable, literally) a lot but don't mention Templar, but it's a very valid specialization.
Guest_starlitegirl_*
I liked Champion much better. Your guard is great and you really are the champion of the group. I never even used Cass' abilities. They were wasted. But for Blackwall and myself, we tanked the hell out of everything. Sometimes I would just run myself as the tank with three mages or two mages and varric or iron bull. One Champion can do a hell of a lot. You keep the whole party relatively safe and honestly, I found it very fun but also challenging at times. I went solo against Valimir (the storm coast dragon that has guard) because my team kept dying and I felt it was pointless to keep reviving them. So I just used my guard and timed my attacks against its. Champion made it a lot of fun. I'd never even bother with the other two. I think the 2H probably needs reaver to help durability. Templar, while it seems useful was something I never really put a lot into for cass. What I did give her I honestly can't remember even seeing her use but I set her to prefer taunting to help keep the team safe and attention on her where it should be. I don't think I saw her use any other of her specializations ever. Totally wasted. Blackwall used his plenty and got a lot out of champion as did I. It very much suits the RP
Also, if you talk with Cullen and learn about the whole lyrium addiction issue which will be something you'll have to deal with as a templar, taking lyrium, I never felt it fit nobility to use that. Even if my family loved the chantry, which they did that for RP. I was kind of against it or certainly not all for it and troubled by the lyrium addictions. I felt that would be ill suited to a noble as well as an inquisitor. I felt I needed to be sharp and the idea of being bound to a drug that causes addiction, and even worse you see the whole red lyrium aspect just turned me right off it.
In DAO it was so different because Alistair had great templar abilities and didn't use lyrium ever. I wish they had put a little spotlight on that in this story. It was kind of a big thing with him and he was a templar who did fine. Maybe they changed that in books later, but for then, he had never taken it and had his abilities which makes it very suspect. You had them too without using it if you chose that path which seems more noble than using a drug.
On the subject of the deal with Alistair and his lack of Lyrium woes - I interpret it the way he does as well. Templars don't necessarily NEED lyrium to function, it just makes their abilities more effective, despite what the Chantry may say. Since he was only very newly initiated into the Templar order when he was taken away, Alistair wouldn't have had time to end up taking the lyrium and ending up addicted to it... unlike poor Cullen who became a full member of the Templar order, and thusly found himself addicted to the lyrium.
From an RP perspective, you could look at the quest item you get from the Templar quest as being a symbolic thing rather than establishing your own lyrium addiction. You can't really get addicted to something that you don't take, am I right? The Hero of Ferelden and Hawke never needed to take lyrium if you went for the Templar class.
This is of course assuming that Bioware didn't apply some retroactive continuity when Ser talks about how it's the lyrium that Templars take that gives them the abilities. If you want my own opinion? I prefer to think that he's just full of Druffalo Dung and the lyrium is not actually needed.
Edit: It's also possible that Alistair is the one talking druffalo dung, and is secretly snorting lines of liquid lyrium when Arnora/FemCousland/Teagan/Eamon isn't looking.
Nope alistair in the comics took lyrium writen by the head writer. To use templar abilities you need lyrium. No ifs or but.
Champion if you never ever ever want to die. Which I dont, since i can pretend I'm playing dead is dead mode now 
templars look cooler though. and it fits with the main guys rifting demon-hunting abilities.
Both can be fun, and neither will have issues surviving. It comes down to if you want to be able to nuke groups of enemies at 1 time via spell purge and wrath, and also obliterate rifts with ease, or be invulnerable and have great single target damage via champion's to the death ability.
Ah good side materials that directly contradict the previous games. That never makes people salty.Nope alistair in the comics took lyrium writen by the head writer. To use templar abilities you need lyrium. No ifs or but.
Nope alistair in the comics took lyrium writen by the head writer. To use templar abilities you need lyrium. No ifs or but.
And yet... Cassandra clearly has the powers of Templar (and then some) WITHOUT taking Lyrium AND states that such a thing IS possible (through the vigil she endured).
Cassandra is a seeker, her abilities are different but they gave her templar ones for gameplay. Besides becoming a seeker you find out is not easy, it is bloody dangerous.
If you did her quest you will realise it is not easy at all to become a seeker.
I went Champion and I am liking it. As Zephy has pointed out in previous threads, it's situational damage usually to a single opponent with a 2H Champion but I am finding it to be real fun. My champion is rarely in trouble and still deals good damage. The Rebuke of Sunderland (2H Axe I found in Emprise) really turned my game around.
Champion is great for bosses, templars great for packs. Both work well. Champion provides you great survivability, templar shares his/her survivability with the entire party. Both are decent and will get better when the detonators get fixed.
I was literally about to make a thread about this, but less about what to choose than people's preferences. I did a playthrough of both specs, S&S. I'm torn. I love both. I find champion to usually be better, but I love the flavor and satisfying abilities of the templar. Also as a templar I find it more friendly to respec if I feel like trading off to two handed for awhile. I also like having Cassandra in my party so double templar can be kind of... meh.
From a lore perspective the potential lyrium addiction does bother me. A lot.I don't like the feeling that my character's abilities are born more of what amounts to a drug instead of skill. It is especially hard as I see templars struggling with withdrawal or negative side effects. Champion on the other hand seems to be simply a perfecting of your skills blended with a mastery being a leader, hero, and/or inspiration.
As I said, I am torn. But Champion is probably the safe choice. It makes you nearly invincible and has pretty much only positive lore with it (Chevaliers are pricks as the instructor says but champions have all that skill with none of the pissing on the little people). Templar is my personal favorite (name and avatar kinda say all) but even then I am torn by some gameplay and lore stuff.
Side note I need to do a Reaver playthrough soon. Not really my typical style but might be an excuse to do a dwarf or qunari for style points.
Nope alistair in the comics took lyrium writen by the head writer. To use templar abilities you need lyrium. No ifs or but.
From a lore perspective the potential lyrium addiction does bother me. A lot.I don't like the feeling that my character's abilities are born more of what amounts to a drug instead of skill. It is especially hard as I see templars struggling with withdrawal or negative side effects. Champion on the other hand seems to be simply a perfecting of your skills blended with a mastery being a leader, hero, and/or inspiration.
As I said, I am torn. But Champion is probably the safe choice. It makes you nearly invincible and has pretty much only positive lore with it (Chevaliers are pricks as the instructor says but champions have all that skill with none of the pissing on the little people). Templar is my personal favorite (name and avatar kinda say all) but even then I am torn by some gameplay and lore stuff.
See, the way I read the lore and commentary on the Champion is that they are "addicted" to popular acclaim and glory. This leads to grandstanding, showboating, daredevilry, and other metaphorical antics. As a result, Champions tend to either go out in a blaze of glory/stupidity from jumping in over their heads, or meet more ignoble ends when the people turn on them. That said, all of that's probably a forgone conclusion for the Inquisitor, so the Champion is still probably the "safest" option overall.
My warrior templar in Origins and Inquisition both beg to differ. Never took an ounce of lyrium, yet sem to b able to do all a templar can do, just fine. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Well sure, and my Mages in Origin and DA2 (not to mention Morrigan and Merrill) all managed to use Blood Magic without being possessed or going on murderous rampages (well, aside from what's expected in a Bioware RPG), so I guess all of those abominations were just mass hallucinations. Or we can chalk it up to "Gameplay and Story Segregation" and move on.
See, the way I read the lore and commentary on the Champion is that they are "addicted" to popular acclaim and glory. This leads to grandstanding, showboating, daredevilry, and other metaphorical antics. As a result, Champions tend to either go out in a blaze of glory/stupidity from jumping in over their heads, or meet more ignoble ends when the people turn on them. That said, all of that's probably a forgone conclusion for the Inquisitor, so the Champion is still probably the "safest" option overall.
Well sure, and my Mages in Origin and DA2 (not to mention Morrigan and Merrill) all managed to use Blood Magic without being possessed or going on murderous rampages (well, aside from what's expected in a Bioware RPG), so I guess all of those abominations were just mass hallucinations. Or we can chalk it up to "Gameplay and Story Segregation" and move on.
Um, I'm not sure the analogy there is a good one: one is living under threat of something that MIGHT happen, the other is something that either absolutely is or absolutely is not necessary for templar powers to occur... So just because all those lesser dabblers in bloo magic turned into abominations doesnt mean they ALL as a RULE do. So your Blood Mage isn't actually breaking an alleged lore rule by not being an abomination. Also that J name guy from origins mage intro and redcliffe who does blood magic but doesn't become an abomination.
Im just making an argument here, I know that its gameplay/story separation.
To make my counter argument, I am fairly sure Bioware retconned that bit hard. Originally, it was true templars didn't need lyrium to use their abilities. As the lore progressed though Bioware decided to make lyrium use by templars much more central to the plot and so it became necessary to say that regular lyrium use, as well as occasional supplementary lyrium for power boosts as seen in DAI, are needed for templars to be templars. Or you can become a seeker but as we found out that is a bit of a process.
Apparently involving becoming tranquil and then untranquil....or something. I want to see a mage's face when you show them you can buy TRANQUILizer guns on ebay....To make my counter argument, I am fairly sure Bioware retconned that bit hard. Originally, it was true templars didn't need lyrium to use their abilities. As the lore progressed though Bioware decided to make lyrium use by templars much more central to the plot and so it became necessary to say that regular lyrium use, as well as occasional supplementary lyrium for power boosts as seen in DAI, are needed for templars to be templars. Or you can become a seeker but as we found out that is a bit of a process.
I felt the exact same as you did about the lyrium addiction but I found a way to circumvent that. It is supposed to take years to develop a true addiction to lyrium so what you do is become a templar and then convince Cullen to not take lyrium. This way you have the abilities but are also able to stop like the other Templar Do in the epilogue!I was literally about to make a thread about this, but less about what to choose than people's preferences. I did a playthrough of both specs, S&S. I'm torn. I love both. I find champion to usually be better, but I love the flavor and satisfying abilities of the templar. Also as a templar I find it more friendly to respec if I feel like trading off to two handed for awhile. I also like having Cassandra in my party so double templar can be kind of... meh.
From a lore perspective the potential lyrium addiction does bother me. A lot.I don't like the feeling that my character's abilities are born more of what amounts to a drug instead of skill. It is especially hard as I see templars struggling with withdrawal or negative side effects. Champion on the other hand seems to be simply a perfecting of your skills blended with a mastery being a leader, hero, and/or inspiration.
As I said, I am torn. But Champion is probably the safe choice. It makes you nearly invincible and has pretty much only positive lore with it (Chevaliers are pricks as the instructor says but champions have all that skill with none of the pissing on the little people). Templar is my personal favorite (name and avatar kinda say all) but even then I am torn by some gameplay and lore stuff.
Side note I need to do a Reaver playthrough soon. Not really my typical style but might be an excuse to do a dwarf or qunari for style points.
hope this helped
RP aside I found the Templar to be much more satisfying than the Champion. You can effectively melt packs down although the Templar does struggle on bosses because of how underwhelming the base warrior skills are especially on the 2H tree. But that's what your companions are there for. The templar is a group spec that provided a lot of useful buffs while the champion, at least to me was more of a solo build (To the Death actually can murder your companions if you are not careful).
As for the RP side I actually find myself reluctant on choosing Templar (even though I enjoy it a lot) simply because of the Lyrium addiction thing. The Reaver suffers in a similar way (Cassandra tells you that dragon's blood is kind of a drug too) so that leaves only Champion as a normal non addictive spec.
I played both all the way through and honestly both are strong and fun, but i think champion is the better tree.
Walking fortress and to the death are both just amazing skills. In fact they are so good they make soloing nightmare almost too easy.
RP aside I found the Templar to be much more satisfying than the Champion. You can effectively melt packs down although the Templar does struggle on bosses because of how underwhelming the base warrior skills are especially on the 2H tree. But that's what your companions are there for. The templar is a group spec that provided a lot of useful buffs while the champion, at least to me was more of a solo build (To the Death actually can murder your companions if you are not careful).
As for the RP side I actually find myself reluctant on choosing Templar (even though I enjoy it a lot) simply because of the Lyrium addiction thing. The Reaver suffers in a similar way (Cassandra tells you that dragon's blood is kind of a drug too) so that leaves only Champion as a normal non addictive spec.
My issue as well, honestly if my char gonna be addicted i expect a bit more. But anyways i keep hoping blessed blades will get fixed so we get the damage bonus it says. Right now it only gives a damage bonus against demons.
From a roleplaying perspective, Champion is the best spec for your Inquisitor. We all know most Templars end their days in a lyrium-addled haze. Breaker Thram alludes that most reavers die in glorious battle. When you ask Lord Chancer what the downsides of a Champion are, he asks, "Are you allergic to silk?"
When you ask Lord Chancer what the downsides of a Champion are, he asks, "Are you allergic to silk?"
Lord Chancer is amazing. I really wish he had more dialogue.
IMHO, Templars fit in right between the juggernaut-esque champion and the Sustained DPS Beast Reaver. They can be either off-tanks, or amazing
burst damage dealers. I dislike the idea of a templar tank because even though you are damn hard to kill and can deal some damage, balancing
between attack and defensive stats on your gear is what is going to get you. Because the champion can survive anything and everything while
dealing almost little damage (with tank build,) and because Reaver will out DPS you if you are built to tank as a templar. IMO, templars truly shine as
2H burst DPS's. With the right gear and build you can one-shot anything that is susceptible to physical effects on NM. Champion is basically the god-
tank that doesn't even have to worry about is guard meter breaking if the person is half-decent. They usually are pretty bad at damage dealing, but I
know somebody in this sub-forum made a thread about his 2H champion DPS build, which is worth a look. Hope this helps!
Retour en haut