101 réponses à ce sujet

[Lantern]

Vanderbilt_Grad wrote...

I think that you are either reading more into what I wrote than I intended or that you are thinking about what other folks have posted here. I've never once said ... "Go Blood Mage to escape the mana issue."
 
In fact I argue that, while Blood Mage allows AW to have mana depleting sustainables to tank that it also allows caster builds to go crazy too. What Blood Mage does isn't specific to the Arcane Warrior, it's just most noticeable there for various reasons including AW popularity.
 
I further argue that, since the high fatigue penalties hit blood magic too, that the combo does in fact have trade-offs as well. I stand firm in saying that non-Blood Mage Arcane Warriors are viable, and a good choice to play in game from both a RP and mechanical perspective.
 
Yes, Blood Mage seems to "let you have your cake and eat it too" when comboed with a tanking AW ... but there is a sort of fools gold there with the fatigue penalty and the lowered HP sometimes shoe-horning what you do tactically.
 
Bad design? Maybe. I still feel that the worst part of the problem is lack of consequences for being a Blood Mage. If folks had to pay an in game penalty to balance out what they can do mechanically I think that you would see a lot less Blood Mage / AW builds.

I apologize for lumping you into a category, but others have in fact suggested that specializing in Blood Mage is a solution to the problems I have put forward and I just don't find that an acceptable solution for the reasons I outlined - the class should stand on it's own and not force you into making role playing decisions you otherwise wouldn't consider.
 

Vanderbilt_Grad wrote...

Lantern wrote...
 
Yes, you CAN play an Arcane Warrior exclusively in a mage role. But at this point are you really using your Arcane Warrior abilities? No, if you are standing back casting spells you are simply a generic mage with 4 wasted talent selections into Arcane Warrior. Conversely, if you want to get into melee and mix it up, you are better served popping sustainables and wearing heavy armor for most of the game.

 
Depends.
 
Wearing armor and helms without having to pump Str is a pretty big perk all by itself. It’s one reason that many folks put AW on Wynne. That warrior gear has some NICE perks even to the pure caster ... and you get that for the specialization & knowing first spell alone. You don’t even have to activate Combat Magic to get good mileage out of Arcane Warrior … and it’s a lot better on most main character’s than any NPC.

I don't really consider one specialization talent into a class representational of that class. A specialization class should be defined by ALL 4 talents of it's tree and the effectiveness of those abilities. Therefore, my analysis of the Arcane Warrior as an effective mage/warrior hybrid is based off selecting the entire 4 talents available to it.

Vanderbilt_Grad wrote...
Second, Shimmering Shield is an amazing spell all by itself. You don’t have to worry nearly as much about AoE spells with that thing up for instance. So you got caught in your own Storm of the Century? Not good, but not nearly as bad with Shimmering Shield. Your mage getting overwhelmed by the spider mobs in the deep roads? Shimmering Shield can help.

Yes, Shimmering Shield is a powerful spell - I'm not denying that. But using it as melee protection totally neuters your ability to cast spells with it's enormous mana cost. In order to not use it as melee protection you either need to:

1) Wear highly expensive Reapers Vestments + Lifegiver
2) Wear Massive/Heavy Armor

All of the above choices are either highly cost prohibitive or virtually eliminate your ability to cast spells anyway. Even with Rock Armor (+5% fatigue and 40 upkeep) + Arcane Shield + plate gloves/legs/helm, you are still going to get violated hard by melee agro if you have cloth armor.
 

Vanderbilt_Grad wrote...
Fade Shroud has mana regeneration and more defenses on top of all the normal melee boosting stuff.

But you have to have Combat Magic active to use it (bye bye spell casting). And it doesn't add nearly enough defense to make that much of a difference if you are wearing cloth.
 

Vanderbilt_Grad wrote...
Does all this seem to have more use on a melee focused build than a casting one? Sure. But to say that the picks are “wasted” simply isn’t true. I will agree that going 1 or 3 deep in AW is probably best for a caster, but as with many other lines … even if that 4th spell is situational sometimes it’s worth it if you are planning on getting the 3rd spell in a line. (See all the stuff about Glyph of Neutralization)

How are the talents not wasted if:

1) You want to emphasize your spells, but you don't want to activate Combat Magic because then you can't really cast, but all the talents are based around Combat Magic............

2) You can't survive long enough in combat with your standard robes, but don't want to use massive/heavy armor because of fatigue, but all the Arcane Warrior abilities are based around combat.........

3) You only end up using your Arcane Warrior abilities around 10% of the time when your enemy is next to dead and/or totally incapacitated from Crowd Control spells.

4) You could go 4 deep into something that you would use 60-70% of the time like the Blood Magic line, Cold Primal magic, Waking Nightmare line.

Let's face it, Arcane Warriors just don't work well as caster/warrior hybrids. They are great for players that want to get some heavy armor, run some sustainables + the odd situational Cone of Cold and/or Crushing Prism, and then auto attack. If you want to be able to cast more than 2-3 spells per fight, switch between warrior/mage roles in combat, and utilize your specialization abilities more than 10-15% of the time, then this class (in it's entirety) is a waste of talent points. You would be better served specialization into Spirit Healer and/or Blood Mage if you want to cast to any reasonable degree and get more bang for your buck.

Modifié par Lantern, 18 février 2010 - 02:07 .

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

Honsestly Bloodmage 1-3 is where it's at. 4 is only OK. I like Blizzard, but clearly Cone of Cold is the best spell in the Frost line. See that's the thing about mages, you are more defined by the spells you pick rather than the lines or schools. It's a false initial assumption to say that all 4 spells in a line really mean anything.



I'll also point out that your end conclusion is false in many instances as well. Gear, Companions, and more will do a lot to set the number of spells per combat. Just as a minor example I sometimes have Wynne set to cast Rejuvination on the main PC if his mana is lower than 25% and to cast Mass Rejuviation with the same conditions after that. That sort of mana regeneration boost fits her role really well and avoids some of the issues you cite. It's just one way among many too.

[TBastian]

Really now? Have you even tried taking all the Spirit line spells and making a Theurgist-AW?

Mana Clash for mages. Instant, permanent, effective. Force Field. Cast once on a friendly tank, and you don't have to worry about casting anything else for a while since you'll be busy whacking something. Spell Shield. Makes use of your mana so you actually don't have to worry about fatigue draining it all. Anti-Magic Ward and Virulent Walking Bomb. Cast VWB to aggro, use ward. Whack target monster to death (VWB will aggro it) and voila, his allies go down along with him. No complicated spell combo required. Animate Dead. So, you want to go tank something? Then go resurrect the mage you just killed and make him your temporary nuker while you do something else.



Or. You could just have observed how the game actually uses an AW and maybe learn a bit about how they use their magic and talents. You might be surprised.

[beancounter501]

TBastian wrote...

Really now? Have you even tried taking all the Spirit line spells and making a Theurgist-AW?
Mana Clash for mages. Instant, permanent, effective. Force Field. Cast once on a friendly tank, and you don't have to worry about casting anything else for a while since you'll be busy whacking something. Spell Shield. Makes use of your mana so you actually don't have to worry about fatigue draining it all.

Ha, I always said Mana Clash + Spellward will top Shimmering Shield against mages.  Never thought of the Anti-Magic Shell + VWB.  May have to try that one out!

[AuraofMana]

Rule number one of fiction writing is never violate the reality you yourself impose upon the reader - guess the bioware guys skipped that day.

Rule number one in game design is that gameplay > everything else. I guess you skipped that day.

the class should stand on it's own and not force you into making role playing decisions you otherwise wouldn't consider.

That's not how video games work.  Some dude could be arguing how his Rogue should tank for some RP reason, and yet the Rogue is not specifically designed for that role (and as a matter of fact, cannot fulfill that role.)  Should we change the gameplay according to how THAT ONE GUY envisioned his character?  No.

Your points are great, but you are trying to change the gameplay of one specialization to another.  I think when the dev's designed the game, they meant for the specialization to be like this.  Arguing that it is not the devs' original intent is not going to work.

Modifié par AuraofMana, 18 février 2010 - 09:03 .

[Lantern]

AuraofMana wrote...

KragCulloden wrote...
Rule number one of fiction writing is never violate the reality you yourself impose upon the reader - guess the bioware guys skipped that day.

Rule number one in game design is that gameplay > everything else. I guess you skipped that day.

Considering DA:O is considered a Role Playing Game (RPG), I think story takes priority over game play. Obviously both are important though.

AuraofMana wrote...

Lantern wrote...
the class should stand on it's own and not force you into making role playing decisions you otherwise wouldn't consider.

That's not how video games work.  Some dude could be arguing how his Rogue should tank for some RP reason, and yet the Rogue is not specifically designed for that role (and as a matter of fact, cannot fulfill that role.)  Should we change the gameplay according to how THAT ONE GUY envisioned his character?  No.

I totally agree that rogues were not designed to be tanks. Using your logic, obviously you must also agree that mages were not designed to be tanks – this role was designed for tanks. And yet we have a mage (Arcane Warrior) encouraged by a combination of mechanics to tank rather than perform its primary design (casting). Should we change the gameplay according to good game design? Yes. I feel that Bioware has done exactly what you illustrated in your hypothetical example above: They have taken a MAGE and made it TANK better than it casts... I find that horribly stupid from a design perspective. Additionally, I think my suggested changes would improve the class and the quality of the experience for those that play it.

That aside, why should role play arguments be totally discounted? These are fictitious story driven worlds that we are playing in. Role play is a component of that story driven setting. If someone presents a compelling justification why a specific class does not adhere to game lore, is poorly conceived, and/or does not conform to a specific ethos, then their complaints should be heard. Obviously if someone makes a stupid argument why a rogue should be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound and run faster than a speeding bullet, then we ignore them. But I hardly think my complaints against the Arcane Warrior are that ridiculous.
a
EDIT: Furthermore, this game is supposed to allow the player to make choices about how they want to play. Krag made the point that game designers should therefore not force players into making decisions they otherwise wouldn't make. For example, it is poor design to say that a player could select Blood Mage to make their class work if they do not want to select Blood Mage for RP reasons.

AuraofMana wrote...
Your points are great, but you are trying to change the gameplay of one specialization to another.  I think when the dev's designed the game, they meant for the specialization to be like this.  Arguing that it is not the devs' original intent is not going to work.

What does it matter how the devs originally designed the class? If the class could be improved or changed for the better that is what matters.

Modifié par Lantern, 18 février 2010 - 10:18 .

[TBastian]

Ha, I always said Mana Clash + Spellward will top Shimmering Shield against mages. Never thought of the Anti-Magic Shell + VWB. May have to try that one out!

It's functional and very effective but don't expect overpowered. Anti-Magic Ward also removes your sustainables, so against tougher opponents you'll only want to activate it only as they are dying. If you don't want to lose your sustainables (Shimmering Shield has a long cooldown in particular) you can just cast Force Field on yourself and use the ward on your fellow tanker instead.

Using your logic, obviously you must also agree that mages were not designed to be tanks – this role was designed for tanks. And yet we have a mage (Arcane Warrior) encouraged by a combination of mechanics to tank rather than perform its primary design (casting). Should we change the gameplay according to good game design?

Like I said, there are specializations with skills from other classes. This was obviously done to add flavor to the base classes. The list includes Rangers, Templars, Shapeshifters and of course, the AW. But when it all comes down it, the Ranger is supposed to be a rogue. The Templar is supposed to be a warrior. The SS and AW are supposed to be mages. Adding true multiclasses now would not only unbalance the game, but would require that all specializations get a major overhaul.

The AW is supposed to be a mage who has the option of trading spellcasting for improved martial stats. Alas, a design flaw (and the only one I see) can cause it to become too powerful, to the point that people are forgetting that first and foremost, it should be a mage. The BM/AW combo further complicates this.
While I would normally applaud someone who'd want to make a decent mage out of the AW,  since you are doing this because you wants cherries on top of what the AW currently is, then I can only say I find this thread a bit sad.
He can be a decent mage. You obviously just need to play him differently from how people are currently using him. He will become weaker. He will become more balanced. Apparently you can't bear with that (and are actually blaming Bioware, on top of everything heh), so... meh.

Modifié par TBastian, 19 février 2010 - 02:28 .

[AuraofMana]

I totally agree that rogues were not designed to be tanks. Using your logic, obviously you must also agree that mages were not designed to be tanks – this role was designed for tanks. And yet we have a mage (Arcane Warrior) encouraged by a combination of mechanics to tank rather than perform its primary design (casting). Should we change the gameplay according to good game design? Yes. I feel that Bioware has done exactly what you illustrated in your hypothetical example above: They have taken a MAGE and made it TANK better than it casts... I find that horribly stupid from a design perspective. Additionally, I think my suggested changes would improve the class and the quality of the experience for those that play it.

Actually, I tried an AW out after reading what you wrote. I was wrong before and I agree with you 100% now. AW might have been the most boring spec I've ever played. I don't see the point of this class. So what if it can tank better? I honestly feel like I can just make my Mage a CC/Nuker and faceroll through the game. CCing enemies make your tank's job easier anyway. There seems to be no point in playing this spec at all. It is certainly never going to out DPS a Warrior or Rogue. Hell, even a Warrior tank can bring some knockdowns and stuns to the table. AW right now just auto attack and can't even hold aggro as the spec has no access to Taunt or Threaten.
Not to mention this spec has no mana to cast anything.  Even Blood Magic only mitigates the problem.  If I can't cast anything, how can I be versatile?  If I want to play a tank or melee DPS, I'll go roll another class.  This spec is completely and utterly worthless.

Modifié par AuraofMana, 19 février 2010 - 01:51 .

[TBastian]

So you brought out an AW and played it for like a few hours and after it didn't out work for you, you decide to make a rather decisive statement about it here in this thread. Not to mention all that exaggeration and lack of any attempt at tactics.

I hope you're just being sarcastic.

Modifié par TBastian, 19 février 2010 - 02:49 .

[AuraofMana]

Actually, I went ahead and cheated to see if it was amazing high level. It is, but not compared to any other class. I've played Dragon Age long enough to know when a build is better than another build. But seriously, if you've been playing a build for a few hours and can't decide if it is good enough or not, then you probably shouldn't be advertising any builds on the forums.

[mosspit]

AuraofMana wrote...
Actually, I went ahead and cheated to see if it was amazing high level. It is, but not compared to any other class. I've played Dragon Age long enough to know when a build is better than another build. But seriously, if you've been playing a build for a few hours and can't decide if it is good enough or not, then you probably shouldn't be advertising any builds on the forums.

Have you considered the flexbility in the AW/?? class? A jack of trades and master of none? If you think the flexbility is not a big deal, you have just put aside the strongest aspect of an AW imo. Also note that this flexbility does not come without tradeoffs.

As for calling an AW "completely and utterly useless", all I can say is that it is a weak hyperbole... at best.

Modifié par mosspit, 19 février 2010 - 04:25 .

[Lantern]

TBastian wrote...

Using your logic, obviously you must also agree that mages were not designed to be tanks – this role was designed for tanks. And yet we have a mage (Arcane Warrior) encouraged by a combination of mechanics to tank rather than perform its primary design (casting). Should we change the gameplay according to good game design?

Like I said, there are specializations with skills from other classes. This was obviously done to add flavor to the base classes. The list includes Rangers, Templars, Shapeshifters and of course, the AW. But when it all comes down it, the Ranger is supposed to be a rogue. The Templar is supposed to be a warrior. The SS and AW are supposed to be mages. .

Are you supporting my point? A ranger can use ALL of its non-weapon specific abilities to maximum effect. A Templar can use all of it's warrior abilities to maximum effect. My point with the Arcane Warrior is that you cease to become an effective mage when you want to use Arcane Warrior....... none of the other specializations (Ranger/Templar/Asassin/Blood Mage/Berserker/Bard/etc.) have that restriction. They still retain their core abilities at near 100% while the Arcane Warrior trades being a mage for a boring sustainble-centric auto attack tank. This wouldn't be such a problem if the Arcane Warrior could fluidly change between mage and warrior roles in combat- but it really can't. I understand that there should be penalties for being able to fight in combat and cast, but these penalties should have been better conceived so as to retain the Arcane Warrior's original function (mage) in a better way.

TBastian wrote...
Adding true multiclasses now would not only unbalance the game, but would require that all specializations get a major overhaul.

Not really??? Just look at the changes: if they seem reasonable then they should be fine.

TBastian wrote...
The AW is supposed to be a mage who has the option of trading spellcasting for improved martial stats. Alas, a design flaw (and the only one I see) can cause it to become too powerful, to the point that people are forgetting that first and foremost, it should be a mage. The BM/AW combo further complicates this.
While I would normally applaud someone who'd want to make a decent mage out of the AW,  since you are doing this because you wants cherries on top of what the AW currently is, then I can only say I find this thread a bit sad.
He can be a decent mage. You obviously just need to play him differently from how people are currently using him. He will become weaker. He will become more balanced. Apparently you can't bear with that (and are actually blaming Bioware, on top of everything heh), so... meh.

Yes, the Arcane Warrior can be a generic mage - so long as you never actually use the main ability of the Arcane Warrior (Combat Magic). Review my previous posts if you want more clarity.

Modifié par Lantern, 19 février 2010 - 06:55 .

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

Lantern wrote...
This wouldn't be such a problem if the Arcane Warrior could fluidly change between mage and warrior roles in combat- but it really can't.

What is your evidence for this position?

[Lantern]

Vanderbilt_Grad wrote...

Lantern wrote...
This wouldn't be such a problem if the Arcane Warrior could fluidly change between mage and warrior roles in combat- but it really can't.

What is your evidence for this position?

See OP

[stragonar]

I wonder how much differently AW would play if willpower became the stat used to determine meeting str requirements instead of magic... I would think that with this build you would end up with a mage with a large spellpool to accomidate the increased fatigue. Clearly this could result in less points being put into magic so, in turn, a less powerful spellcaster, which to me seems like a better/more suitable trade off then being able to cast like 2 spells and then being OOM. I realize that even with AW as it is now you can opt to put many points into willpower to compensate, but because of the magic requirement for wearing armor/using weapons it limits options a bit. I suppose the one problem with this would be that dual specializations would be gimped because of the build, but i thought i'd throw it out there anyway. And yes, to compensate for the gimped spellpower i would probably lower the fatigue penalty on CM.

[AuraofMana]

Have you considered the flexbility in the AW/?? class? A jack of trades and master of none? If you think the flexbility is not a big deal, you have just put aside the strongest aspect of an AW imo. Also note that this flexbility does not come without tradeoffs.



As for calling an AW "completely and utterly useless", all I can say is that it is a weak hyperbole... at best.

That implies AW has enough mana to cast spells (ignoring the fact that you have to sheath weapons for most of them) WHILE maintaining all your sustainables. I am sorry dude, but if I have to put any points into Willpower this build is not worth it. What's the point of making a half-ass mage and a half-ass warrior? Your Magic is not high enough for your spells to be worth it, not to mention most of them will be resisted anyway. To go into casting mode, I have to drop all my sustainables and swap out armor and weapon. Do you know how long it takes to reactivate all the sustainables?

Versatility is a funny thing, since the game doesn't need it. As a Mage you can faceroll through the game. It practically plays itself. As an AW you have a harder time and you end up being less efficient on both sides.

The point is, the tradeoffs for flexibility is too much. It makes your character inferior compared to if you had just built a pure casting Mage. In addition, flexibility is not needed. Not to mention auto-attacking is a sack of boredom. I want to play a game, not watch my character slash 3 different ways and look at the RNG at work.

[Lantern]

stragonar wrote...

I wonder how much differently AW would play if willpower became the stat used to determine meeting str requirements instead of magic... I would think that with this build you would end up with a mage with a large spellpool to accomidate the increased fatigue. Clearly this could result in less points being put into magic so, in turn, a less powerful spellcaster, which to me seems like a better/more suitable trade off then being able to cast like 2 spells and then being OOM. I realize that even with AW as it is now you can opt to put many points into willpower to compensate, but because of the magic requirement for wearing armor/using weapons it limits options a bit. I suppose the one problem with this would be that dual specializations would be gimped because of the build, but i thought i'd throw it out there anyway. And yes, to compensate for the gimped spellpower i would probably lower the fatigue penalty on CM.

Interesting suggestion stragonar. The problem with emphasizing willpower so much is that it goes somewhat against the typical spell caster build. The average player may put a lot of points into Magic without realizing that once they specialize Arcane Warrior, Willpower was the important stat. So while I like the theory of your suggestion, it may confuse and disapoint gamers unless it is made clear at character creation that Arcane Warriors emphasize Willpower more than Magic.

You also have to keep tradeoffs in mind. The Arcane Warrior is already very powerful as a tank. I think increasing the AW mana pool while not addressing overpowering abilities like Massive Armor + Shimmering Shield etc would be a mistake.

[stragonar]

@AuraofMana:



Can't say i know the pain of sheath casting myself, i got that aspect of the game modded long ago since i see that as more of a bug than anything. As for the half-assed statement, yes you would be a half-assed mage IF you were so inclined to make sure you wanted to use all the heaviest armors and tank (spending lots on willpower in this case) but you likely would be able to sustain threat much better since you would have the option of putting more points into strength and dex to do more damage/hit more etc. while keeping sustainables up. Otherwise, if you wanted something a bit closer to a pure mage, you could dump more into spellpower at the cost of not being able to wear as heavy armor, which might be useful to certain specialization combos.

[stragonar]

@lantern:



Well i do think shimmer could use a bit of a nerf regardless of my suggestion but you might be right about the idea still.

[Lantern]

AuraofMana wrote...

Have you considered the flexbility in the AW/?? class? A jack of trades and master of none? If you think the flexbility is not a big deal, you have just put aside the strongest aspect of an AW imo. Also note that this flexbility does not come without tradeoffs.

As for calling an AW "completely and utterly useless", all I can say is that it is a weak hyperbole... at best.

That implies AW has enough mana to cast spells (ignoring the fact that you have to sheath weapons for most of them) WHILE maintaining all your sustainables. I am sorry dude, but if I have to put any points into Willpower this build is not worth it. What's the point of making a half-ass mage and a half-ass warrior? Your Magic is not high enough for your spells to be worth it, not to mention most of them will be resisted anyway.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say ANY points into willpower   But even at 30-35 Willpower, I could not sustain a decent level of spell casting with Combat Magic and/or Massive Armor and/or Shimmering Shield active. Once you start going above 35 Willpower you start to sacrifice a decent amount of potential Magic/Spellpower.

AuraofMana wrote...
To go into casting mode, I have to drop all my sustainables and swap
out armor and weapon. Do you know how long it takes to reactivate all
the sustainables?

This. Glad you could finally see one of the major problems with the AW. That's why I suggested increasing Combat Magic's defense bonus while eliminating Shimmering Shield. It consolodates the amount of casting you have to do into one spell while eliminating an overpowering ability and opening a slot for an active melee ability.

AuraofMana wrote...
Versatility is a funny thing, since the game doesn't need it. As a Mage you can faceroll through the game. It practically plays itself. As an AW you have a harder time and you end up being less efficient on both sides.
The point is, the tradeoffs for flexibility is too much. It makes your character inferior compared to if you had just built a pure casting Mage. In addition, flexibility is not needed. Not to mention auto-attacking is a sack of boredom. I want to play a game, not watch my character slash 3 different ways and look at the RNG at work.

Yup, and that was one of my other points. Considering how AW abilities severely limit spell casting ability and just really don't work well with a spell caster in any capacity, you are far better off specializing into something other than AW and getting more bang for your dollar (*whisper* Blood Mage *whisper*). Too bad you have to violate your good character's role play experience to play a class that actually works well.

Modifié par Lantern, 20 février 2010 - 06:43 .

[Nachoman Randy]

Arcane warrios is fine.



I could cast a lot of spells with AW/BM, tanked, and killed everything by myself with him.



The only, real problem is the hit rate at early levels and the lack of one or two weapon attacks.

[GeorgeZip]

-diving back in the mud.



"I made my mage into an AW, put massive armor on him, ran just as many sustainables as before including Shimmering Shield apparently before having Fade Shroud, paid little attention to regeneration or stamina gear, consider Wade's dragons scale armor as optional or exotic, and now why can't I cast as many spells like before?!"



Seriously, it's not that useful to play a class to less than its potential then make suggestions on how to make it work based on your flawed shoices in gear and tactics. Or is it a sign of greatness? .



As an AW you are a hybrid class. Instead of cloth you can now have some level of armor protection, your choice, bonuses to all resistances, and the ability to supplement your spell attacks with melee attacks with rune effects. There's plenty of guides with all kind of custamizing options. The class is far from broken and you can build them to have plenty of mana for spellcasting.

[Caslovesme]

An AW gets to use his magic to compensate for his lack of strength. Wearing heavy/massive armor should limit the mana pool via fatigue, because, unless you boosted your strength score (in which case you don't need the combat magic), its whats allowing you to wear it in the first place. So... if you really wanted it to be "realistic" they should not allow the substition unless combat magic is actually activated-- but that would be asking too much to require you to don and doff your armor in the middle of combat. I prefer it the way it is.

[ccconda]

Turn off most of your redundant defense/armor+ sustainables. Arcane warriors are more invincible than they need to be with all of them on.

If arcane mages can solo the toughest bosses, then you can definitely afford to be more squishy.

Pick 2ish sustainables, lower your fatigue (gear choice is yours), and dont try to be a God if you don't want to be one.
With the 50% fatigue, and extra bits from equips, your casting ability is diminished, yes. But you do melee damage and are tougher than a normal mage - these bonuses are fair on a basic give and take level.

You can allow the arcane mage to be as squishy as a rogue - lower the amount of sustainables and use more reasonable fatigue equipment. Don't ask bioware for a fix - you can do this yourself. 
ALLOW yourself to be MORTAL and SQUISHY for once. The game is easy enough as is.

-
By the way, you can 'fix' the sheathing 'bug' with a simple mod. If you don't want to, you can just use the spells (lots of good ones) that you can case with a weapon. I'm building an arcane mage that only uses those spells (list is on wiki)

Modifié par ccconda, 17 mars 2010 - 10:53 .

[Moogliepie]

Take the much maligned Shapeshifter as your 2nd spec. and you'll find another way to play as an AW mage.