53 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowLordXII]

Just realized this recently and clearly the allotment and variety of spells which mages can choose from have drastically decreased from Origins.

 

Back in DA: Origins, a Mage could pick from about 68 spells from five base spell trees alone. These trees were the Arcane; Creation; Entropy; Spirit and Primal schools with Arcane having 4 spells and the others each having 16. Awakening added 12 more spells to Arcane and the total of 6 Specializations (blood mage; arcane warrior; battle mage; keeper; spirit healer; and shapeshifter)each feature 4 spells for 24 more spells.

 

Hence, a mage drawing from Origins and Awakening could end the game with a varied spell arsenal from 106 spells. Taking into account that some of these spells are passive rather than active/sustained effects, that could put the number down into the 90s. But the point still stands.  

 

In DA2, spells were pointlessly and drastically given the ax much like many aspects of dragon age going into this game.

 

The five primary schools are present though elemental magic is split out of primal magic. However, each school only features 5 to 6 spells for a total of 32 base spells. Add in the 3 specializations (blood mage; force mage; spirit healer) with 5 spells each and that's only 47 spells total.

 

You could argue that DA2 has more spells due to the mage companion's unique specialization trees, but keep in mind that Merrill and Anders abilities are a mix of past or present spell trees anyway. Plus, these aren't available to the player without modding, so why would it matter?

 

Whatever the case, it's clear that spell choices were cut in half from 90 to 100 down to a measly 47. Worst yet, it didn't add anything to the game except highlight how streamlined that DA2 was and how much lighter as an RPG that it clearly was. Less options doesn't just mean less ways to kill people, it also means less ways of customizing and optimizing your PC as you desire. It takes away meaning and reward from gaining xp for getting stronger since you have less abilities to acquire now.

 

Last, but not least is Dragon Age: Inquisition.

 

In terms of the number of spells, Inquisition has 57 (33 base+24 specialization spells) and while that is a higher number than DA2, there's even less freedom of customization and optimization here.

 

Why? Because the base spells are all drawn from the Spirit (defense) and Elemental/Primal schools of magic. Which means no Arcane; Entropy or Creation spells are initially available. So in essence, your mage is stuck as either an attacker or a supporter. You have to specialize in order to be able to go melee (knight enchanter), debuff (necromancer), gain stronger area of effect spells (rift mage) or even to have any capacity as a very vital healer (knight enchanter). Oh and you can only have one specialization this time around.

 

In short, the dragon age series started with a mage having a large selection of spells to choose from. Said selection assisted in helping a player to truly mold out their own unique role be it as a supporter; healer; debuffer; damager; area slayer; tank; or etc.

 

Then DA2 cut that potential in half and Inquisition has followed up with even less spell options due to having only TWO spell trees available without specializations. 

 

Some would argue that this works because its meant to follow a "less is more approach". I'd call this wrong since players aren't getting more for having less options, we're just getting less and less with no gain or benefit whatsoever. You have less ability to customize your mage; less ability to define your role outside of the box; less ability to craft your character according to your tastes; and less incentive to be invested in having your character get optimized as best as they can be.

 

So can someone explain how the series is better for going from 106 spells from 5 base trees and 6 specializations down to 47 spells from 6 trees and 3 specializations and now, 57 spells from essentially 2 base trees (creation and primal/elemental) and 3 specializations?

 

Cause I've got nothing.

[straykat]

It almost seems like someone completely new came in and just made a bunch of arbitrary changes. Even DA2 kept this in tact, more or less (albeit with some changes, like the Arcane tree).

[Vit246]

They streamlined it.

 

What I really hate is this trend of "upgrading" spells.

[correctamundo]

It is more like 83. So it is clearly nothing.

[straykat]

Da2 might've had less, but it kept the schools mostly in tact. It reflected a different system that was closer to the original.

 

And I don't even understand why some spells are bundled the way are. Like Rift mage seems like stuff Hawke already had, but were spread around in more appropriate areas. Elemental/Force/Primal. You could even say those debuffs are kind of Entropy-like..but I'll ignore that.

[Jason1990]

I agree the spells from any class feel boring compared to da:o. Even the specialization tree skills feel random.. why cant a templar give a magic negate.. and why cant mages buff up their allies anymore.. no healing ? no shapeshifting.. no beast summons for an archer, nothing...

I live da:i but they ruined the abilitys

I am hoping for a new class in da4.. and better skills.. maybe some kind of shapeshifter

[Absafraginlootly]

*snip* 

 

In terms of the number of spells, Inquisition has 57 (33 base+24 specialization spells) and while that is a higher number than DA2, there's even less freedom of customization and optimization here.

 

Why? Because the base spells are all drawn from the Spirit (defense) and Elemental/Primal schools of magic. Which means no Arcane; Entropy or Creation spells are initially available. So in essence, your mage is stuck as either an attacker or a supporter. You have to specialize in order to be able to go melee (knight enchanter), debuff (necromancer), gain stronger area of effect spells (rift mage) or even to have any capacity as a very vital healer (knight enchanter). Oh and you can only have one specialization this time around.

 

*snip*

 

This. Just having less spells is fine with me as long as the spells in question are well made and cover a variety of purposes but removing most of the spell schools really bothers me, both from a lore perspective (they really stood out to me in DAO, now its like they don't exist) and from a gameplay one. Mages are less enjoyable now.

 

I miss entropy and the variety of spell types, now it seems like they're mostly just damage or defense (sometimes with other effects added but not as the primary purpose). And decreasing the main spell types hasn't done the specializations any favours, they're mostly made up of things that would of been in the missing schools mashed together with a theme that doesn't make much sense with them (eg. the rift mage doing 2 force mage spells + fire storm and stone fist, ????)

 

The return of spell schools and specialisations that make sense for mages in DA4 please.

[kimgoold]

I've said much the same, you have a character that has been highly trained to use magic and they now have this small selection of spells and specialisations (DAI) as opposed to the impressive array of spells and specialisation from DAO and DAA its almost laughable if it wasn't so sad!. The Force Mage specialisation was the best addition to the existing spells and specialisations to date in DA2, I was glad to see Knight Enchanter and Rift Mage in DAI, this would have been even better if they had kept the original spell schools and specialisations set up with the earlier Dragon Age games. In the game lore wise Mages are supposed to be power-houses in battle and feared adversaries now its just not as satisfying to play one with the current game mechanics where they have been watered down to almost nothing. Hopefully in the next game someone who loves the Original game will have some input into developing a better system that returns to the wider range of skills and specialisations of all three classes we had prior to DAI's slashed offerings.

[AedanStarfang]

They removed a lot in the way of spells that I miss such as Crushing Prison, Mana Clash, Fire Storm, etc. I really hope Bioware goes back to its roots with DA4, while remaining innovative to an extent.

[KaiserShep]

I don't really care about DA:O mages (because I find them to be Xanax), but DA2's Force Mage made me learn to love the class, especially when coupled with the Primal tree. Rift Mage doesn't really make much sense to me, because it doesn't seem to have a cohesive set of spells. Knight-Enchanter, to me, is the only specialization that looks more thoughtfully set up. 

[Gervaise]

Considering we are meant to be moving to Tevinter next game (based on what happens at the end of Trespasser) I really hope that the mage options will be improved again.    I was disappointed by the reduction in spell schools but even more in the limitation of specialisations to just one, particularly when you consider just how high a level you get to by the end of the main game, let alone the DLC.     In DAA by the same level, we could end with three specialisations and some really interesting combinations of regular spells and specialisations.

 

Mind you, I was also disappointed by the reduction in the rogue abilities and specialisations too.    I loved playing a shadow assassin in the past and given what we learnt about the wolf companions to the Emerald Knights in the time of the Dales, it would have made sense for at least a Dalish to have the option of playing a ranger again.  

 

Having greater variety for customising the PC, together with the different origin stories, is what gave the scope for such different play throughs with DAO/DAA, so I agree that I hope they restore some of that flexibility to DA4.    If they still allow us to play different races, may be a second specialisation could be offered that directly relates to our origins.

[Navasha]

Well honestly, the dragon age series has been morphing as well.   DA:O sat solidly in the RPG genre.    It was had squad-level tactical combat with real-time pausing.   By the time we get  to DA:I, it is clearly now an action RPG.   The game difficulty and encounter design was clearly reduced so that it could be played in real time.    Pausing is still an option, but they clearly didn't design the game to be played that way.   

 

Lots of spells and options take away from that 'real-time' experience.   I love Dragon Age, but I do mourn the passing of its tactical combat.  

[Knight of Dane]

They streamlined it.

 

What I really hate is this trend of "upgrading" spells.

I actually quite like it now that you have options. It spices up replayability and useability between builds. For example you can use taunt both as giving your DPS more armor and as a farther reaching taunt for your tanks.

[straykat]

I actually quite like it now that you have options. It spices up replayability and useability between builds. For example you can use taunt both as giving your DPS more armor and as a farther reaching taunt for your tanks.

 

Warriors keep getting better across the games imo.

 

But mages suck.

[ShadowLordXII]

Warriors keep getting better across the games imo.

 

But mages suck.

 

Ha! No.

 

Warriors actually got it just as badly. Warrior abilities were just as neutered as mages if not more so. It doesn't seem so bad because most of it occurred between DA2 and Origins and DAI merely refined what was leftover from DA2.

 

In Origins, a Warrior accessed all four weapon types (two-handed; dual wielding; sword and shield; archery) and had enough versatility to be customized as a Buffer; Defender; Front Liner; Tank; Damager; Mobile Warrior; Ranged Fire Support or etc.

 

After that, Warriors were restricted to only the two-handed and sword and shield weapon trees. They were also further restricted to either being a tank or a damager.

 

And Inquisition has stuck with this downgrade for...reasons.

[Duelist]

Ha! No.

Warriors actually got it just as badly. Warrior abilities were just as neutered as mages if not more so. It doesn't seem so bad because most of it occurred between DA2 and Origins and DAI merely refined what was leftover from DA2.

In Origins, a Warrior accessed all four weapon types (two-handed; dual wielding; sword and shield; archery) and had enough versatility to be customized as a Buffer; Defender; Front Liner; Tank; Damager; Mobile Warrior; Ranged Fire Support or etc.

After that, Warriors were restricted to only the two-handed and sword and shield weapon trees. They were also further restricted to either being a tank or a damager.

And Inquisition has stuck with this downgrade for...reasons.

See, this is what happens when people who only play mages opine on classes they don't play.
Most of the Warrior abilities in DAO suck ass, two handers being the absolute worst.

Besides, actually break down the roles you say Warriors were capable of (other than ranged as they don't get that option):
- Buffer - This is the Templar spec as well as the Battlemaster tree.
- Damager - Reaver, Champion for bosses and Templar for mobs capable of being stunned.
- Frontline/Defender - All warriors are capable of this, some more so than others.
- Mobile - The talents are there to make a warrior far more mobile than at any point in the series.

As for weapon restrictions, dual wielding warriors brought nothing to the table after Awakening.
The two things they had in their favour ,Melee CC and DPS, were filled much better by two handers (lord knows they needed the buff) and rogues (they were already better at DPS, Awakening just made the disparity worse) leaving them as half assed warriors trying to be rogues.
Anything they did bring to the table was usurped by specs and the remaining weapon choices.

[ShadowLordXII]

See, this is what happens when people who only play mages opine on classes they don't play.
Most of the Warrior abilities in DAO suck ass, two handers being the absolute worst.

Besides, actually break down the roles you say Warriors were capable of (other than ranged as they don't get that option):
- Buffer - This is the Templar spec as well as the Battlemaster tree.
- Damager - Reaver, Champion for bosses and Templar for mobs capable of being stunned.
- Frontline/Defender - All warriors are capable of this, some more so than others.
- Mobile - The talents are there to make a warrior far more mobile than at any point in the series.

As for weapon restrictions, dual wielding warriors brought nothing to the table after Awakening.
The two things they had in their favour ,Melee CC and DPS, were filled much better by two handers (lord knows they needed the buff) and rogues (they were already better at DPS, Awakening just made the disparity worse) leaving them as half assed warriors trying to be rogues.
Anything they did bring to the table was usurped by specs and the remaining weapon choices.

 

Shut it. I played all three classes through the games, so I know what I'm talking about. I also don't bother with baseless assumptions that do nothing but demonstrate your own ignorance.

 

The Warrior abilities in Origins were fine. Better than fine. You had a lot to pick from in regards to creating your own custom warrior and this further added to the RPG element of Origins.

 

Take for example. Having access to all of the weapon trees (48 to 72 to be exact) means that you're capable of either committing to one weapon style or having the choice of devoting equal time into two weapon styles in addition to the precision; powerful; second wind; and specialization trees. Hence for example, my Revan Cousland was a Champion/Spirit Warrior with points in dual wielding and shield/sword. Hence, he was able to go to the front of battle as a tank while inspiring his party. Once the flow of battle really went towards the player's favor, Revan pops out two swords and goes into damage destroyer mode.

 

It also helps that unlike in Inquisition, the player can freely allocate and customize their attributes. Which means that a Warrior can potentially have a high dexterity score for increased mobility, accuracy and defense. Hence how a warrior can increase their mobility depending on what the player wants for that Warrior. This is also surprisingly more realistic as there are combat styles that do focus on precision and mobility over strength and toughness. Warriors also used a wide variety of weapons throughout history: swords; axes; bows; spears; hammers; clubs; and etc.

 

Here? There is no room for versatility. Even your attributes can't be altered or upgraded without crafting and even crafting clearly has a bias towards strength and constitution for warriors.

 

Ranged: Absent

Mobile: Downgraded (dodge roll doesn't make up for the loss of attribute allocation, dual wielding, archery or etc.)

Frontline: Duh, that's what the game's forcing you to be.

Defender: Again, you don't have a choice.

Buffer: Battlemaster is clearly a tree for damage optimization with only one talent for buffing and another for debuffing.

 

So yes. Origins system rocks compared to the objective downgrades that followed. Having played and carefully studied all three games that's not a statement made lightly or without validity. The downgrade hurt warriors and mages alike. Rogues got hit too, but that was tolerable compared to what happened to the other two classes.

[The Baconer]

Eeeh I'd actually agree with Duelist. The loss of dual-wielding is a shame, but warriors (and rogues) have only gotten better as the series has gone on. Also, attribute allocation, dual-wielding, and archery have absolutely nothing to do with mobility. 

[straykat]

Ha! No.

 

Warriors actually got it just as badly. Warrior abilities were just as neutered as mages if not more so. It doesn't seem so bad because most of it occurred between DA2 and Origins and DAI merely refined what was leftover from DA2.

 

In Origins, a Warrior accessed all four weapon types (two-handed; dual wielding; sword and shield; archery) and had enough versatility to be customized as a Buffer; Defender; Front Liner; Tank; Damager; Mobile Warrior; Ranged Fire Support or etc.

 

After that, Warriors were restricted to only the two-handed and sword and shield weapon trees. They were also further restricted to either being a tank or a damager.

 

And Inquisition has stuck with this downgrade for...reasons.

 

Those extra weapon styles are gone unfortunately, but it doesn't play anything like a DA2 warrior to me.. mostly because of the active blocks and combat rolls. And 2h is back to DAO type speeds.

 

One thing I really don't like is the chain pulls. That's silly.

 

The Earthquake stuff is silly too, but DA2 did that first.

 

I also don't like how Cunning/Crit becomes so crucial to a 2h champ.. It was easier to build more types of warriors before.

[BansheeOwnage]

Ha! No.

 

Warriors actually got it just as badly. Warrior abilities were just as neutered as mages if not more so. It doesn't seem so bad because most of it occurred between DA2 and Origins and DAI merely refined what was leftover from DA2.

 

In Origins, a Warrior accessed all four weapon types (two-handed; dual wielding; sword and shield; archery) and had enough versatility to be customized as a Buffer; Defender; Front Liner; Tank; Damager; Mobile Warrior; Ranged Fire Support or etc.

 

After that, Warriors were restricted to only the two-handed and sword and shield weapon trees. They were also further restricted to either being a tank or a damager.

 

And Inquisition has stuck with this downgrade for...reasons.

I miss my dual-wielding+sword and shield Warden...

[Riot Inducer]

Agree with so much of this thread. The stripping away of options (from all classes) since DA:O has been annoying me. The worst offender really is the mage in DA:I though. The different schools were great in DA:O and offered a lot of playstyles for a mage that weren't just "throwing fire/ice/lightning" (hell you could throw rocks without rift mage in DA:O), I loved being a debuff/cc focused mage with the different Entropy hexes and things.

 

And from a lore perspective it's hard to reconcile things like specializations. Rift mage is supposed to be a super bleeding edge new magic. So then why is it basically the Telekinesis line from the Spirit school + a couple more Primal spells they couldn't fit into the main trees? Necromancer is just the Death line from the Spirit school (though tbh this does kind of make a bit more sense given the typical attitudes towards magic in Thedas).  

[BansheeOwnage]

Agree with so much of this thread. The stripping away of options (from all classes) since DA:O has been annoying me. The worst offender really is the mage in DA:I though. The different schools were great in DA:O and offered a lot of playstyles for a mage that weren't just "throwing fire/ice/lightning" (hell you could throw rocks without rift mage in DA:O), I loved being a debuff/cc focused mage with the different Entropy hexes and things.

I miss those too. They were cool and very useful.

[straykat]

I miss those too. They were cool and very useful.

 

A pain in the ass when enemies used them too.

[ShadowLordXII]

Eeeh I'd actually agree with Duelist. The loss of dual-wielding is a shame, but warriors (and rogues) have only gotten better as the series has gone on. Also, attribute allocation, dual-wielding, and archery have absolutely nothing to do with mobility. 

 

Feel free to think that way. But the games speak for themselves.

 

Mobility is increased through dexterity which you could increase as you level up.

 

As a result, your accuracy and attack ability with a bow or with dex-based dual wielding increases to make you more lethal.

[The Baconer]

Feel free to think that way. But the games speak for themselves.

 

Mobility is increased through dexterity which you could increase as you level up.

 

As a result, your accuracy and attack ability with a bow or with dex-based dual wielding increases to make you more lethal.

 

That's gameplay in a pen-and-paper sense, sure. In gameplay that has nothing to do with moving your character around in a combat encounter. To-hit and dodge chance are just number generators with different ranges, it's not related to control and mobility.