128 réponses à ce sujet

[Fireheart]

Wouldn't you prefer a varied and dangerous list of mage powers though to make fighting them more exciting, as opposed to exactly the same for every faction you face?

The same is true of big warriors etc, 3 swings to build guard, doesn't matter if it's an elf or a hurlock alpha they're all exactly the same... copy and pasted with a slightly different look.

There was much more avriety in previous games, and it's doubly disappointing for the mages.

lol oh man, I really hate those big warriors with the mauls swinging them around omg. And the archers are deadly too. It seems like enemy warriors and archers have been powered up and mages powered down. I think it goes both ways though. I gotta say, I played as a mage in dao and da2 and loved it, but absolutely abhored playing a mage in dai. My regular staff attacks were a joke, I might as well have been throwing pebbles at enemies, and my spells never did much damage either. In retrospect, I think it might've been that I had bad equipment or something, idk. In my 2nd playthrough I was a warrior on Hard difficulty instead of normal as in my first PT. The game was waaaaayyy easier as a warrior than it was as a mage for me, I just zoomed through everything, slashing away, it was crazy... As a mage I even played as KE, only reason I picked the class is because I heard it was overpowered, but I didn't see it. My mage was still average, but it did make some fights a little easier.

[Diegonius]

I think for the story to make sense mages HAVE to be dangerous, but the player has mages and so does the enemy factions, so it evens out. If magic sin't powerful though, it's just sort of boring... I mean it's MAGIC, by definition it shouldn't suck.

 

Then, we agree on that. I just think that mages should have few health points (thus, making them somewhat "balanced").

 

For me, what should define these three classes is:

Mages: low health, weak basic attack damage. Spells with high area damage. Crowd control, buff/debuff.

Warriors: a lot of health points, decent basic attack damage. Higher skill damage for 2-handed, better defense for weapon and shield. Threat control, individual disables.

Rogues: medium health, average basic attack damage. Skills with high damage to a single target. Evasion/stealth skills, skills that take advantage of flanked and disabled enemies, a bit of crowd control.

[DanteYoda]

What ever happened to Mages that could spawn Animals after DA O that area of magic seemed to Vanish... My spawned Spider used to wreck Darkspawn..

 

Imagine spawning a Bear in Inquisition haha every enemy dead in seconds...

[Saphiron123]

What ever happened to Mages that could spawn Animals after DA O that area of magic seemed to Vanish... My spawned Spider used to wreck Darkspawn..

 

Imagine spawning a Bear in Inquisition haha every enemy dead in seconds...

That was actually a rogue skill t o summon animals, but mages could shapechange... both would be fun.

 

Then, we agree on that. I just think that mages should have few health points (thus, making them somewhat "balanced").

 

For me, what should define these three classes is:

Mages: low health, weak basic attack damage. Spells with high area damage. Crowd control, buff/debuff.

Warriors: a lot of health points, decent basic attack damage. Higher skill damage for 2-handed, better defense for weapon and shield. Threat control, individual disables.

Rogues: medium health, average basic attack damage. Skills with high damage to a single target. Evasion/stealth skills, skills that take advantage of flanked and disabled enemies, a bit of crowd control.

Agreed, mages in DI are way too meaty. I mean they should have magical healing etc, but they should be squishy. And their spell catalog should be pretty impressive. There are obviously exceptions, like darkspawn emissaries, They usually have decent HP and lots of power.