For example, in the Champion of Just quest, we see some of the people in the Templar order are marksman. Thus I never understood why Templar wasn't a specialization for Archers either.
And considering if, say you play a Trevelan Inquisitor, the family goal for the Trevelan is for them to become a Templar.
Magic specializations I can understand the restriction, but some of the specializations I feel shouldn't have been class restricted.
For example, in the Champion of Just quest, we see some of the people in the Templar order are marksman. Thus I never understood why Templar wasn't a specialization for Archers either.
And considering if, say you play a Trevelan Inquisitor, the family goal for the Trevelan is for them to become a Templar.
Magic specializations I can understand the restriction, but some of the specializations I feel shouldn't have been class restricted.
Good point. Most of them shouldn't be, now that I think about it.
Templars have all manner of fighting styles (except mages, of course), so any rogue should be able to be a Templar too, like you said.
Reavers were all three classes in DA:O, even if it was still only available for warriors like DA:I.
Tempest: There is no reason a warrior or mage couldn't be one, though it might be a but redundant for a mage.
Artificer: Anyone can make traps.
I can see Champion or Assassin not necessarily melding across classes, but the rest definitely should be able to. But only magic specs really couldn't work.
Why did you bring this up? Now it irks me! 
While you both makes good points, they likely want to have class identity and distinction, so I think it makes sense if you look at it that in mind.
Good point. Most of them shouldn't be, now that I think about it.
Templars have all manner of fighting styles (except mages, of course), so any rogue should be able to be a Templar too, like you said.
Reavers were all three classes in DA:O, even if it was still only available for warriors like DA:I.
Tempest: There is no reason a warrior or mage couldn't be one, though it might be a but redundant for a mage.
Artificer: Anyone can make traps.
I can see Champion or Assassin not necessarily melding across classes, but the rest definitely should be able to. But only magic specs really couldn't work.
Why did you bring this up? Now it irks me!
Only because I thought of it now.
While you both makes good points, they likely want to have class identity and distinction, so I think it makes sense if you look at it that in mind.
It does, but I can't say I'm a fan of taking away options in favour of distinction, like Warriors being able to use all weapons in DA:O. Plus, I thought they were still defined and distinct enough in DA:O even with that overlap. Hopefully I don't sound overly bitter or anything, I'm not trying to
While you both makes good points, they likely want to have class identity and distinction, so I think it makes sense if you look at it that in mind.
If that were the case, than there would be no Templar Marksman, just saying. The class we get as an Inquisitor say one thing, while NPC enemies seem to be breaking all the rules.
^ Well yes, when I say class distinction I am referring to the player only, not the world at large. The player has to make a choice about which class to play. I just think that if they blur the lines too much that we may as well have Skyrim where the single PC can take all of these skills, magical and physical. This is one reason why I don't want the issues with the Veil to greatly alter the magic ability of all people. I like that fact that some people are mages and some are not. I think that contributes to the lore of the world and has had interesting story ramifications.
Retour en haut