55 réponses à ce sujet

[JaegerBane]

Never mind melee attacks.... SO MANY ABILITY SLOTS.... I'd forgotten just how many.... *cries*

[darkizzle]

They removed a LOT of things that still boggles my mind honestly, to the point where I wonder if anyone involved with the gameplay of this game has even heard of Dragon Age or RPG's in general. Melee mage attacks are pretty far down on that list.  

[Tremere]

Yeah but even with close quarter combat a mage's armour just isn't going to protect them anyway, so whether you're getting pounded while shooting spells or whacking them with a stick it's still going to be messy, a spell hits harder and faster and that's a mages strength.  

 

I am always getting in the thick of things with my mage, casting that electric bubble thing (forget the name) that and chain lightning and you can pretty much get the upper hand, of course you get pounded on but you're likely to end them before they end you.

*nods in agreement* For the record, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to say that it should be an option. I personally like being able to keep melee fighters at a distance and I also like the idea of being able to strike in a more mundane method in close quarters. Not having that ability doesn't make me feel "more magey"...  *chuckles*

[Tremere]

I agree, I absolutely hated playing a mage in DAO, but I loved it in DA2 - loved it! But it seems Bioware has a hard time identifying what works and what doesn't.

 

My mage Hawke hitting enemies with his stick when they got too close WORKED! It made playing as Mage ENJOYABLE!

 

Was a dumb move removing it in DAI.

I agree... If you check my signature, you'll see where my Mage uses bladed weapons in DA2. I don't even bother playing "the traditional way" in DA2 for reasons I expressed in the top link in my signature.

[Terodil]

My clerics always waste a feat on exotic weapons, because of fashion concerns. #justsaying

[coldflame]

but if i chose not to use one, i should be able to cast spells anyway, right? welp, not in this game i won't... PC equips default stick to whack mobs

I agree. In lore, mages don't need staves to cast spell. Staves are probably there for gameplay more than anything else.

[Lee T]

working adults who dont havethe time oto game, but still insist on doing so

You mean the people who actually fund the gaming industry with their work money ?

[dirk5027]

Hawke...run up to bad guy, whack him in the head, freeze him, whack him in the head again, an absolute blast

Hawke : "I have a big stick and I'm not afraid to use it"

Isabella: " UUUhhh, now you have my attention"

(not in the game just popped into my head)

[JumboWheat01]

Like others, I do wonder what's the point in putting a blade on the end of your big stick if you're not gonna do some spear or pike style combat when needed, but I guess adding in an animation for that would've been too much for our old PS3 and 360s.

 

Also, I guess they expected ranged combatants to stay at range.  While this is true for player-controlled characters when the tank gets their agro on, but AI-controlled characters just love to run into melee.  And enemies in this game tend to be spotted a good distance ahead, don't need to worry about them planning an ambush, unlike, say, the enemies in 2, which "air dropped" into the fight quite frequently, often times behind you, and got to your archers or mages before your tank could get close enough to establish agro.

[turuzzusapatuttu]

https://www.youtube....h?v=jlACgYHtWCI

 

That's why melee attacks with staves are so cool 

[Average Designer]

Agreed a melee attack to hit enemies when they got too close was nice.

 

Also miss the rock armor spell itself. They turned it into a freaking potion that only lasts 60 seconds. That's a WTF as well. A spell turned into a potion! Really!? They went the route of Fable 3 where they turned certain spells into potions. That's so wrong. The Rock Armor spell gave a lot of damage reduction for the mage in the game. Loved it in DA2!

[Rawgrim]

Personally I don't see the point in melee combat for mages any way. I'd rather do more damage with a fireball or zap them with lightning, can be done up close or from a distance.

 

Because when someone is standing two inches from you, dropping a fireball on them might be a bad idea.

[Rawgrim]

I agree. In lore, mages don't need staves to cast spell. Staves are probably there for gameplay more than anything else.

 

Didn't need staffs in DA:O. Could just use your hands if you wanted to. The devs cared about the lore back then.

[Realmzmaster]

Didn't need staffs in DA:O. Could just use your hands if you wanted to. The devs cared about the lore back then.

 

If the developers cared about lore back then there would have been no healing by mages inside of combat except by spirit healers or mages possess by spirits like Wynne and Anders..

[Rizilliant]

Says who? And by what lore do you speak? As far as i know, mages in DA have always had the capacity to heal. One need only seek the ability!

 

 

This is not D&D dude. Merely an emulation of its ruleset!  Dragon Age lore has healers in, and out of combat.

[TheOgre]

If the developers cared about lore back then there would have been no healing by mages inside of combat except by spirit healers or mages possess by spirits like Wynne and Anders..

 

Why can healing potions heal someones intestines that are nearly hanging out of their bodies then, in an instant?

[spacefiddle]

Why can healing potions heal someones intestines that are nearly hanging out of their bodies then, in an instant?

 

[Realmzmaster]

Why can healing potions heal someones intestines that are nearly hanging out of their bodies then, in an instant?

 

Actually I would eliminate healing potions altogether. I would also bring back permadeath of any character with no possibility of resurrection..  I would like to see more damage prevention. I also would like to see serious injuries have a very dramatic effect. Potion spamming in DAO was just to easy and the combat to much set battle pieces. 

[Rizilliant]

Actually I would eliminate healing potions altogether. I would also bring back permadeath of any character with no possibility of resurrection..  I would like to see more damage prevention.

 

Again, This is D-R-A-G-O-N    A-G-E!  You cannot "Bring Back" something that was never there... That said, Healing mages were, and are there, and deep in Dragon Age lore.. As are potions, and alchemy, poisons, trapping, etc.. These are things that should have been in Inquisition, as they were its predecessors.. This ends up being a completely different genre, with all but certain lore, and story aspects in tact.. Its been gutted, butchered, and mutilated to near unrecognizable condition!

[Realmzmaster]

Also serious wounds would remain. Enchanted gear that had regenerative properties would only be able to heal the character life points to the maximum amount minus any damage done by injury. Injury kits would not exist. The character would have to seek a healer or doctor to fix the injury. Multiple injuries would further weaken the character. 

[Realmzmaster]

Again, This is D-R-A-G-O-N    A-G-E!  You cannot "Bring Back" something that was never there... That said, Healing mages were, and are there, and deep in Dragon Age lore.. As are potions, and alchemy, poisons, trapping, etc.. These are things that should have been in Inquisition, as they were its predecessors.. This ends up being a completely different genre, with all but certain lore, and story aspects in tact.. Its been gutted, butchered, and mutilated to near unrecognizable condition!

 

Dragon Age was suppose to be the spiritual successor to BG. BG had all those many of the points I spoke of. Bioware set itself up for this comparison by saying DAO would be the spiritual successor to BG. IMHO, DAI actually is closer to being the spiritual successor than DAO.

[JumboWheat01]

Dragon Age was suppose to be the spiritual successor to BG. BG had all those many of the points I spoke of. Bioware set itself up for this comparison by saying DAO would be the spiritual successor to BG. IMHO, DAI actually is closer to being the spiritual successor than DAO.

 

Just because something is "supposed" to be something doesn't mean it is.

[Realmzmaster]

Just because something is "supposed" to be something doesn't mean it is.

 

OF course, but when you hype it that way expect the comparison. Some of us were here when the design specifications for DAO came out. There was quite an uproar. Now in hindsight some posters see it as the pinnacle of cRPGs. Sorry that for me was Baldur's Gate 1 and Baldur's Gate 2. For me DAI is close to BG1 in design. That is why I like it more than DAO.

[Owlfruit Potion]

As much as I loved the staff melee attacks, they made a lot more sense in DA2, where the mage PC was an apostate whose father had carefully taught them how to hide their powers when necessary, than they would have for most DA:I mage PCs.

[hw78]

Melee attacks are missing for mages and archer rogues and it honestly sucks. I mean, never mind the fact that running is a ****** drag (and deliberately used to pad the game, everyone moves faster in multiplayer) but not being able to cut your way out of a mob when they get too close is a flat out disaster. You can't defend yourself! All you can do is run away.

It's like the Dragon Age dev team held up DA2 and said "Everything good about this game can never come back, let's make the combat as tedious and awful as possible." And then they chest bumped or something.