58 réponses à ce sujet

[axan22]

can we use the new specializations in origins and will the existing ones have more abilities etc added, as i was hoping the spicializations in gen would have been more in depth rather than just the 4 abilities and small passive bonus, will another sot be added at 21 so we can have 3? all info grately received :-)

[Menaduke]

I like the idea of new specializations.
-Just some possible ideas

[1] Warrior
a. Blackguard <-- hehe NWN
b. Gladiator <-- specialize in short hand weapon skills (fast attack)
c. Warlord/Conquerer <-- two hander specialization
d. Vindicator (Expert Mage Hunters - the apostates, from Chantry) <-- sword and shield specialization
[2] Rogue
a. Pugilist <-- hand to hand combat (using
b. Slayer <- similar to assasin, but uses heavier armor
c. Archer <-- skills that increase the accuracy and damage of archery.
[3] Mage
a. Diabolist (Warlock) <-- maledict/curses/shadow spells
b. Druid (Naturalist) <-- summon natural creatures / use roots :\\ hate those trees!
c. Elementalist (Mage) <-- summon elemental golems or massive elemantal damage)
d. Necromancer/Bonereaver (Undead Summoner/Undead Warrior) <-- summon undead creatures, collect bones create stronger creatures - abominations/ Arcane Warriors Evil Two handers heavy hitters with health as their mana.
e. Inquistor (Chantry Mage) <-- specialization nullification magic and healing

[Allison W]

Archer specializations would make sense for both the warrior and the rogue. As would a pugilist. I'd actually rather have something like a pugilist as a warrior spec, not a rogue spec, if only because pugilists in many games are relegated to the DPS role instead of the tank role.



Also, there's no reason for a Chantry mage spec to specialize in healing. The Templar doesn't. Religion and healing don't really have the same association that they do in DA as they do in, say, old-school D&D. We already have the Spirit Healer for a healer spec. Then again, vanilla mages with no particular spec already have a whole lot of antimagic available to them; I don't know where an antimagic spec would even have room to grow for a mage.



There's also no reason to make another mage-hunter spec for the warrior. The Templar covers it just fine. And assassins are not barred from heavy armour use, just to note.



Again, the most important specs would probably be filling in the things that aren't already there--the extant specs leave a lot of needful stones unturned. Mages who want to stay "pure casters" instead of mage/melee switches without going down the healbot or, more importantly, Blood Mage paths, need specs that cater to that kind of thing. Archers need their own specs, ideally for both the rogue and the warrior. Also, a Constitution-tank spec for warriors, as the extra hit points have a way of not stretching very far. Jus' sayin'.

[Lakmoots]

I loved the way the Spec concepts were handled in DA:O.

I think that most of the suggestions in this thread are absolutely *atrocious*.

Pugilist? Shadowdancer? Blackguard? Necromancer?

ewww... I hope Bioware ignores us

I *do* think, however, that the "Chevalier" concept was a great idea... and seems *very* likely given that there is an option for an Orlesian Warden.

Whoever said that is really thinking about the game and world.

My money is on that.

[hexaligned]

I'd prefer new root classes, but I'll take any variety I can get.

[TheMadCat]

Honestly would have rather see them deepen up the original specializations before going in and adding new ones. They really didn't really feel like specializations, just stat boosts and some extra skills to pick from.

[Gracknug]

I hope they give us a "Chevalier" sort of spec, just name it diffrently. Chevalier is such an Orlisian thing to be, and as a Fereldan i would never consider being something Orlisian'ish!

[draxynnus]

Darkemorrow wrote...

blademaster7 wrote...

Mages -  I beg to differ. I want to see them nerfed a bit instead of making them more powerful. Seriously, blast mage? Just how much more overpowered do you want them to be? Keep it simple, a specialization focused on buffs will do.

Mages are "overpowered" because of a handful of spells like force field, crushing prison, mana clash, etc. - NOT because of spells like fireball or lightning. Cone of cold is admittedly overpowered, but that's only because the freeze effect works on EVERYTHING, even when the enemy is supposed to be immune to cold.

You seem to be inferring a lot about what I meant by "blaster" mage, and what kind of power that would entail. I wasn't suggesting that mages should be turned into walking nuclear missile silos. My only point was that there is no specialization for mages that allows them to be a traditional straight-up caster, rather than a healer or tank. How powerful that specialization should be is a matter of design.

Personally, I would imagine an elementalist specialization to resemble the following, assuming that they keep the current 4 spell per specialization setup:{snip}

There's two reasons I wouldn't like to see the snipped proposal. First, all those spells could easily fit into existing lines, and, that being the case, I'd argue they should - and if my blaster mage decides he or she doesn't want, say, Fire and/or Earth for whatever reason, he or she shouldn't have to pick up those spells just because they're part of the specialisation. Second, this makes it an overtly "Primal" specialisation - I'd prefer if the specialisations weren't too overtly "this is the specialisation for this school, this is the specialisation for this other school..."

Thirdly, I expect Awakenings will have spell and talent lines extended by at least one or two more as well as adding new ones.

The general point, however, is a good one - a hypothetical "blaster" specialisation would still just be more options, and if balanced correctly, it could turn out to be no more overpowered than simply spending those skill points in the regular mage lines - which is what blaster mages tend to do now. Plus, some more competition when it comes to specialisations will make mages less inclined to cherrypick AW for armour.

Allison  W wrote...

I admittedly find myself wondering what quasi-magical rogue specializations would look like. (EDIT: can I teleport backstab plz plz plz)

Actually, I think the assassin specialisation is pretty much this. Mark of Death looks suspiciously like a dabbling in magic similar to Hexes line, for instance.

[Psychoray]

An elemental summoner/creator would be nice, and not that hard to write:



- Fire elemental: Ranged attacks, shoots fire bolts, fire damage. Appearance: Could look like a miniature version of the inferno spell.

- Frost elemental: Melee attacks, not very quick, like a 2h warrior, ice damage. Appearance: Large ice sword. Invisible character model + 2h sword with frost effect.

- Lightning elemental: Melee, fast movement/attacks, like a rogue. shock damage. Appearance: Invisible character model, female rogue, but still visible due to shock effect (spellweaver) all over the character model, dual wields 2 invisible with shock effect applied, like the character model.

- Earth elemental: Tank, melee, physical/earth damage. Appearance: Golem/Shale retexture.



Sort of like elemental summoning from D&D. But materializing an element instead of summoning an actual sapient elemental.

[Darkemorrow]

[quote]relhart wrote...

I'd prefer new root classes, but I'll take any variety I can get. [/quote]

I disagree. The way I see it RPGs can handle classes in one of two ways:

1) Have lots and lots of base classes and attempt to give each one its own unique flavor and mechanical niche. The player has lots of clases to choose from, but typically has very little choice in how that class functions. You can attempt to try and give the player back some of that flexibility by way of "multiclassing" but that gets messy.

2) Have a very small amount of core, generic classes, but give them lots and lots of flexibility. The player may only have 3 base classes to choose from, but they can build each of those classes in many ways. If done well, this system should offer the player the ability to create whatever character archetype they desire through customizing one of the generic classes.

Personally, I think the first option is better for multiplayer games where balance the prevailing issue and giving players too much flexibility within a class jeopardizes that.

However, for a single player game, I think the second option ultimately gives the player far more control over what their character becomes. This is clearly the route that Bioware decided to take in creating Dragon Age, and is the better route in my opinion.

The only problem is that while the specialization system is the primary mechanism for offering players choice in customizing the base classes there aren't (currently) that many options in choosing specializations, nor are there really any choices to be made within a specialization. Which brings me back to my original post: I really think that the single most important thing Bioware could do to improve this game is to expand the specialization system both in terms of the number and variety of specializations available, and in terms of depth within each specialization.

[quote]draxynnus wrote...

There's two reasons I wouldn't like to see the
snipped proposal. First, all those spells could easily fit into
existing lines, and, that being the case, I'd argue they should
- and if my blaster mage decides he or she doesn't want, say, Fire
and/or Earth for whatever reason, he or she shouldn't have to pick up
those spells just because they're part of the specialisation. [/quote]

This is a problem that stems from only having one spell/talent line per specialization. If it were up to me, I'd give each specialization 4 lines, and the elementalist could have one devoted to each element.

[quote]draxynnus wrote...

Second,
this makes it an overtly "Primal" specialisation - I'd prefer if the
specialisations weren't too overtly "this is the specialisation for this school, this is the specialisation for this other school..."[/quote]

A fair point. Some of the current specializations suffer from being too focused on one playstyle (Assassin and duelist both having a mele focus with no comparable specialization for archer rogues, being one example). However, as future expansions add more new specializations, my hope is that we will have enough variety between specializations with very specific functions (Such as Assassin, or my proposed Elementalist) and specializations with more universal appeal (like Champion and Bard, for instance). That way we can have room for cool lore and/or function-specific specializations without forcing players to take them.

In other words, I agree with you that something like my elementalist would be problematic given the current menu of specializations, but I think it would be fine if there were more options available.

[quote]draxynnus wrote...

Thirdly, I expect Awakenings will have spell and talent lines extended by at least one or two more as well as adding new ones. [/quote]

I don't think we can assume something like that without any confirmation. Personally, I would rather see the number of lines increase rather than have the length of each line increase. Mostly to avoid the type of problem you mentioned earlier, where having longer lines forces you to take more prereqs which you may not want in order to get the spells at the end of the lines, which you DO want. [/quote]

[quote]draxynnus wrote...

The
general point, however, is a good one - a hypothetical
"blaster" specialisation would still just be more options, and if
balanced correctly, it could turn out to be no more overpowered than
simply spending those skill points in the regular mage lines - which is
what blaster mages tend to do now. Plus, some more competition when it comes to specialisations will make mages less inclined to cherrypick AW for armour.[/quote]

Agreed. My Elementalist was just a hypothetical example. My main point is that there needs to be a mix of specializations for each class, some with universal appeal, and others that fit niche roles.

Modifié par Darkemorrow, 06 février 2010 - 04:03 .

[Krilral]

I would like them to also add adittional spells/abilities to the exsisting specialisations. For example blood mage. We hear all the time how powerfull blood magic is. I haven't played as blood mage but from what i can see in the descriptions the spells sure are powerfull but not as powerfull as they sound. It would be nice to see some new blood magic spells that are really powerfull but may take a lot of your health or you could use vials of blood to fuel the spells. Of course i would like to see the other specialisations expanded as well.

[Suhiira]

Personally rather then new specializations I'd rather see the NPC AI improved.

There's a lot of potential in the current system, but since it fails to operate correctly (or at all) half the time it really limits the tactical aspects of the game because you have to either pause every couple seconds or hope the AI doesn't do something stupid (like fireball themselves), or pray they do ANYTHING (party members frequently stand around doing nothing at all).

[RamonXick]

I want necromancer! or acolyte maybe?

[jsachun]

Dispell Hostile Magic Aura would be a nice addition to the Templar spec. Just like the spell shield.

[archonsod]

Or is there some explanation for Templar and Reaver abilities that doesn't involve non-mages commanding some degree of supernatural power? I doubt it, since Alistair actually says in-game that Templars use magic of a sort.

As Alistair also tells you the Chantry gets them hooked on Lyrium as part of their training, effectively turning them into mages. Though it's questionable as to whether their limited magical ability is due to a lack of "natural" talent seen in actual mages, or the fact their training tends to focus more on sticking pointy bits of metal into soft squishy things rather than commanding the elemental forces of nature.

[DeadFOX LEP]

Mage - Necromancer. Always loved this in Diablo 2.

Warrior - Fencer. For those that want a defensive warrior without a shield.

Rogue - Archer?

[Allison W]

archonsod wrote...

Or is there some explanation for Templar and Reaver abilities that doesn't involve non-mages commanding some degree of supernatural power? I doubt it, since Alistair actually says in-game that Templars use magic of a sort.

As Alistair also tells you the Chantry gets them hooked on Lyrium as part of their training, effectively turning them into mages. Though it's questionable as to whether their limited magical ability is due to a lack of "natural" talent seen in actual mages, or the fact their training tends to focus more on sticking pointy bits of metal into soft squishy things rather than commanding the elemental forces of nature.

Alistair also says you don't actually need to snort lyrium to use templar powers, that it's just a lie that the Chantry tells to keep their soldiers on a leash. Notice that he isn't a coke fiend, nor is there any need for any other party member with the templar specialization to be.

[nedweb]

I would bet on Silent Sister--the unarmed female dwarven fighter spec. They had one in Orzammar, and one as a character in the Calling. Not sure how you make a monk style class work in DA:O, though. Maybe you get gloves, as in DnD? I would certainly miss a lot of my neat gear. Still, it is the one class that exists in the world that is not really available right now, so my money is there. Do you need to be female or dwarven or both? Not sure. After all, ash warriors learned their skills from dwarves, so maybe it is any female character? Certainly that would be the one wrinkle as I see it.

[draxynnus]

archonsod wrote...

Or is there some explanation for Templar and Reaver abilities that doesn't involve non-mages commanding some degree of supernatural power? I doubt it, since Alistair actually says in-game that Templars use magic of a sort.

As Alistair also tells you the Chantry gets them hooked on Lyrium as part of their training, effectively turning them into mages. Though it's questionable as to whether their limited magical ability is due to a lack of "natural" talent seen in actual mages, or the fact their training tends to focus more on sticking pointy bits of metal into soft squishy things rather than commanding the elemental forces of nature.

It seems to be the former - there's no indication of a selection process by which some proto-mages are chosen to be sent to the Tower and others are sent to become Templar.

That said, it's possible that part of the selection process for Templar includes identifying that the potential recruit has some basic level of talent - not enough to be classed as a Mage, but enough that they can develop Templar powers. Alternatively, it may be that there's a certain level of magical ability that anyone can develop, even dwarves, but only full Mages can take it past the Templar/Reaver/Assassin level.

[Angel of Nessus]

Allison W wrote...

archonsod wrote...

Or is there some explanation for Templar and Reaver abilities that doesn't involve non-mages commanding some degree of supernatural power? I doubt it, since Alistair actually says in-game that Templars use magic of a sort.

As Alistair also tells you the Chantry gets them hooked on Lyrium as part of their training, effectively turning them into mages. Though it's questionable as to whether their limited magical ability is due to a lack of "natural" talent seen in actual mages, or the fact their training tends to focus more on sticking pointy bits of metal into soft squishy things rather than commanding the elemental forces of nature.

Alistair also says you don't actually need to snort lyrium to use templar powers, that it's just a lie that the Chantry tells to keep their soldiers on a leash. Notice that he isn't a coke fiend, nor is there any need for any other party member with the templar specialization to be.

While for the most part true, he does not actually say that it's a lie- only that it's a possibility.

In regards to the whole specialization thing, I fully support the expansion of mages.  I've played a blaster, Arc War, debuffer, healer/support, and controller, and I've learned that you're either overpowered or an "extra" in a sea of main characters.

Necromancers seem like a neat idea; the animate dead ability is, at best, an exceptionally limited ability.  It falls apart at a breeze on norm difficulty.  Getting a tree to support it , either by making it more powerful or making more of the skeletons would be cool.  Adding in some flavored buffs and debuffs would be interesting.

Final note:  Blasters are the best idea since rubbing two sticks together and making fire.  I have no real Idea how they might build it without either being too narrow or overpowered, but that's not my job.

[angj57]

Chevalier is a good idea. How about Ash Warrior? On the surface it might be too close to Berserker, but they could find a way to differentiate. I also think they could add special quests/rp/dialogue options for shapeshifter. I mean the most useful part about being able to turn into an animal wouldn't necessarily be in combat, but for spying, sneaking up on people, etc.

[Axekix]

Chevalier sounds very cool, though I wonder how they would make it differ from Champion, since the two seem so similar in their lore descriptions.



I'd personally love to see a fencing (1h) melee tree added. Actually when I first picked up the game my goal was to make a 1h duelist... until I realized they pretty much -had- to dual wield to really be effective.

[draxynnus]

Angel of Nessus wrote...

Final note:  Blasters are the best idea since rubbing two sticks together and making fire.  I have no real Idea how they might build it without either being too narrow or overpowered, but that's not my job.

Could just be "here's an extra line of blasty spells that aren't necessarily better than your regular ones, but are still tempting enough to be worth specialisating". Similar model to the Spirit Healer, really.

[Allison W]

Angel of Nessus wrote...

Allison W wrote...

archonsod wrote...

Or is there some explanation for Templar and Reaver abilities that doesn't involve non-mages commanding some degree of supernatural power? I doubt it, since Alistair actually says in-game that Templars use magic of a sort.

As Alistair also tells you the Chantry gets them hooked on Lyrium as part of their training, effectively turning them into mages. Though it's questionable as to whether their limited magical ability is due to a lack of "natural" talent seen in actual mages, or the fact their training tends to focus more on sticking pointy bits of metal into soft squishy things rather than commanding the elemental forces of nature.

Alistair also says you don't actually need to snort lyrium to use templar powers, that it's just a lie that the Chantry tells to keep their soldiers on a leash. Notice that he isn't a coke fiend, nor is there any need for any other party member with the templar specialization to be.

While for the most part true, he does not actually say that it's a lie- only that it's a possibility.

OK, point. It is largely proven by the fact that he uses templar talents just fine without snorting lyrium, though.

Angel of Nessus wrote...
Necromancers seem like a neat idea; the animate dead ability is, at best, an exceptionally limited ability.  It falls apart at a breeze on norm difficulty.  Getting a tree to support it , either by making it more powerful or making more of the skeletons would be cool.  Adding in some flavored buffs and debuffs would be interesting.

All for that goodness. Perhaps if we get a third or fourth specialization, I could give that to my black-and-white magic Spirit Healer/Blood Mage.

nedweb wrote...

I would bet on Silent Sister--the unarmed female dwarven fighter spec. They had one in Orzammar, and one as a character in the Calling. Not sure how you make a monk style class work in DA:O, though. Maybe you get gloves, as in DnD? I would certainly miss a lot of my neat gear. Still, it is the one class that exists in the world that is not really available right now, so my money is there. Do you need to be female or dwarven or both? Not sure. After all, ash warriors learned their skills from dwarves, so maybe it is any female character? Certainly that would be the one wrinkle as I see it.

Better idea: No race requirement, no gender requirement, and make it a 3x4 "weapon style" tree for warriors and rogues instead of a specialization. Unless you really want to get into matters like the character's original weapon talents not applying, or trying to decide what weapon talents unarmed attacks use, etc.

The only flaw I can see with the base-class 3x4 tree approach is that it could be considered fairly specific, difficult knowledge that requires special training--it'd just be much easier to handle mechanically as a 3x4 non-spec tree. Even if it is a specialization, there's no need for it to be a female-specific or dwarf-specific or female dwarf-specific spec, if there's an NPC or companion who knows it and can be convinced to share it--after all, there are other "secret" specializations that particular organizations like to keep restricted, but that you can learn from allies (or a book at your local K-Mart).

draxynnus wrote...

Could just be "here's an extra line of blasty spells that aren't necessarily better than your regular ones, but are still tempting enough to be worth specialisating". Similar model to the Spirit Healer, really.

The Spirit Healer spells kick ass like nobody's business, and massively outclass the healing spells the basic mage has access to. The existing nuke spells, on the other hand, are already f'n metal (it's a very technical term), and ones that massively outclass those would probably be game-breaking unless Awakening brings some significant balance changes.

Now, what might not be quite as game-breaking is if it's, say, full of passives that overcome resistances (but, ideally, don't reduce them below zero), so you can use your favourite elemental nukes on whatever--ice on Revenants, fire on Ash Wraiths, go hog-wild.

Modifié par Allison W, 09 février 2010 - 05:23 .

[draxynnus]

Allison W wrote...

The Spirit Healer spells kick ass like nobody's business, and massively outclass the healing spells the basic mage has access to. The existing nuke spells, on the other hand, are already f'n metal (it's a very technical term), and ones that massively outclass those would probably be game-breaking unless Awakening brings some significant balance changes.

Now, what might not be quite as game-breaking is if it's, say, full of passives that overcome resistances (but, ideally, don't reduce them below zero), so you can use your favourite elemental nukes on whatever--ice on Revenants, fire on Ash Wraiths, go hog-wild.

From my experience, I'd disagree with your assessment. They may be a little better, but I can certainly think of situations where I'd prefer Heal to Group Heal, and like Healing, Spirit Healer skills drop off in general utility as you climb the chain. Revive is probably better than Rejuvenation, but I'd say Regeneration easily beats out Lifeward for general usefulness, and Cleansing Aura is mostly useful for dealing with injuries out-of-combat.

Spirit Healer is certainly really nice to have, but it doesn't outclass Healing to that extent. A good healer would want to have both.

Still, perhaps a better comparison would be: Most of the talents for non-mage specialisations are nice, but not so nice that you're necessarily going to want to fill them out ASAP when you could be filling out your class lines instead. A similar comment would apply to a blasting specialisation's talents: they should be worthwhile, but at about the level where you still have to think carefully in the mid-levels about whether you want to pick up the specialisation talent or a regular skill.

Personally, what I'd like to see from a blaster specialisation is power that comes from a different source, one which doesn't fit nicely into the existing schools (although the damage type would probably use Spirit as a standin) - say, the same energy that powers a Templar's Holy Smite. That way, it would be more generally applicable than simply being viewed as a Primal specialisation - a Primal-focussed character might take it is just another blaster line, but a character that focusses in other lines could also take it to have a blasting option that isn't elemental in nature.

Modifié par draxynnus, 09 février 2010 - 05:51 .