33 réponses à ce sujet

[daem3an]

I was checking out Chris Priestly's level 22 dwarf rogue and I noticed the armor set she's wearing offers a bonus to defense and reduces cost to activate spells and talents.

Also note the description for 'Thorn of the Dead Gods', a weapon that 'fell in battle with the mages that first wielded them'.

Personally I think armor sets with bonuses for magic-users is excellent! As for the short sword, I don't know if there are also talents or bonuses that relate to mages using melee weapons (I know they want to avoid the 'overpowered melee mage' type of character), but it's cool that it's in the lore. Does this offend the mage purists out there? Seems to me a sturdy blade could be handy in a pinch, especially for a mage who's tough enough to get close to the fray and survive.

Usually I don't see too many options for cool gear with mages beyond staffs and wands, and often robes all look the same anyway. I generally stick to melee/archer characters (at least until I've played through a few times) but this, the mage origin, and the character creator, are actually making me want to play an Arcane Warrior.

Anyone else liking/hating this?

Modifié par daem3an, 18 octobre 2009 - 05:06 .

[Tyrax Lightning]

I personally don't see any reason why it would be unforgivable for some mage types to have armor. One of my favorite magic using classes i've ever played, DAoC's Thane class wore armor & casted at the same time. They weren't leet, but dang it, they were fun to play!

[Maria Caliban]

That've said since the beginning that mages can and do use armor in dragon age.

[daem3an]

True, I guess I just wasn't expecting to see armor with bonuses for spellcasters.

Modifié par daem3an, 18 octobre 2009 - 05:16 .

[BelgusTradis]

Fighter/Mage best combination ever! At least, in my opinion.

[schalafi]

In NWN2 some magic users could use chain mail shirts IIRC. Also. in SoZ my warlock could wear armor, I don't know about bonuses though.

[amrose2]

One of the bioware profiles on here is like a level 7 or something mage wearing chainmail. So definately cool that it's allowed

[Balek-Vriege]

Well to wear armour as a normal mage is kind of hard in DAO, because you would have to divert a lot of points into strength to meet the requirements. Fortunately, there's the Arcane Warrior specialization which is rumored (now supported by info gained by looking at character creator files) to give mages the ability to ignore or lower strength requirements for equipment and use magic or mana to meet the requirements instead.



Devs have mentioned before that there will be no true fighter/mage in its truest form though. They tried to stay away from the jack of all trades master of all problem of the past. Arcane Warriors will be able to stay in mid/short range, take a punch and cast spells, but I don't think you would rely on them to tank an Ogre or a Dragon lets just say.

[Herr Uhl]

Spells and skills uses roughly the same mechanics. I do however believe that the bonuses on the armors are far less beneficial than the cloth, plus no fatigue or need to put those valuable points in strength or arcane warrior. And spellcasters could use mithril armor in BG2.

[Balek-Vriege]

I agree. Even the most viable option being Arcane Warrior will mean a sacrifice in magic, willpower, spellpower, mana bonuses and increased activation costs. However, the tradeoff is that you become a permanent "Iron Cannon" rather than a mere "Glass Cannon." So AWs can probably focus on casting on others, killing enemies and getting into an ideal mid/short range location to avoid causing friendly fire without getting killed.

[daem3an]

Would be fun to watch, but anyone who tries to tank a dragon with a mage... probably gets what they deserve.

Herr Uhl wrote...

I do however believe that the bonuses on the armors are far less beneficial than the cloth, plus no fatigue or need to put those valuable points in strength or arcane warrior.

Good point, I wonder if the drawbacks to wearing armor instead of cloth are balanced with the additional protection the armor offers? I'm guessing the devs have thought this through more than I have.

Modifié par daem3an, 18 octobre 2009 - 06:09 .

[daem3an]

OK, decided to resurrect this thread. I was just reading the details in the unofficial wiki for the Arcane Warrior talents.

I'm really liking this specialization (this from someone who rarely plays a mage character). Ability to use magic in place of strength + bonuses to attack, defense and damage + some really great defensive abilities. Nice.

We know any character can wield any weapon/armor they want as long as they meet the requirements. I'm curious to see how much damage characters can really do using weapons they aren't 'proficient' in. As far as I can tell, the only drawback is not being able to use weapon-specific abilities, not really a problem if I can offset this weakness with spells & buffs.

In other words, if a mage can cast spells while wielding any weapon and still do moderate damage with that weapon, I fully plan at some point to play an evil sword-and-board or two-hander wielding mage wearing heavy armor and casting fireballs:o, and I will openly challenge any Templar I see. Who else thinks this sounds like fun?

[AffectedFiddle]

Been looking at it myself since the shifting spec seems, once again, a big let down (NwN2 all over again). Does the magic rating boost the damage you do with the weapon is the question, otherwise hitting people may be laughable.



What is interesting is the Shroud ability:

The arcane warrior now only partly exists in the physical realm while Combat Magic is active. Spanning the gap between the real world and the Fade grants a bonus to mana regeneration and a chance to avoid attacks.

Um...yes please?

[Rikaze]

As long as we're on the topic of Mage Spec's, I wanna throw something out here.



My first play through is going to be as a Mage, simply because I wanna play all the Origins, and Mage is my least favorite, so I wanna get it outta the way... She's going to be a very evil person...



Does AW/Blood Mage sound like a cool combo? I think it does! Especially with points in Spirit Spells, any of them. While we're at it, any clue as to how many spells/talents Mages have access to on a per level basis?

[Jonnybear84]

Hmm this just got me thinking, in the book The Calling, there is a female mage who plays a prominent role throughout who is described as wearing a sort of chain mail shirt over the upper body with a robe like skirt covering the lower half, now the character in question isn't an arcane warrior but a straight up staff/fireballs in your face mage. So it makes me wonder if such items as the OP mentioned might not even be intended just for arcane warriors but mages in general.



P.S. Yes I do realize there are a few things in the book that DG admits to existing in the world of Thedas, but not in the games mechanics, such as spears and unarmed combat fighting styles etc.

[daem3an]

AffectedFiddle wrote...
Been looking at it myself since the shifting spec seems, once again, a big let down (NwN2 all over again). Does the magic rating boost the damage you do with the weapon is the question, otherwise hitting people may be laughable.

Well, the wiki states Combat Magic gives bonuses to attack and damage, but it doesn't say if that only applies to spells, or if it counts towards all damage. If it does, that's pretty cool, and makes a melee-capable mage a possibility, while cleverly not allowing them to overpower a pure melee character in combat.

What is interesting is the Shroud ability:

The arcane warrior now only partly exists in the physical realm while Combat Magic is active. Spanning the gap between the real world and the Fade grants a bonus to mana regeneration and a chance to avoid attacks.

Um...yes please?

No kidding. Sounds pretty awesome.

[Cadaveth]

Tyrax Lightning wrote...

I personally don't see any reason why it would be unforgivable for some mage types to have armor. One of my favorite magic using classes i've ever played, DAoC's Thane class wore armor & casted at the same time. They weren't leet, but dang it, they were fun to play!

They were pretty gimp... But Daoc's system has hybrids, which means that some classes can get healing/direct damage/Damage-over-time -spells, weapon skill and heavier armors but they're usually only average in both melee and magic skills. They're usually better in melee, like reaver for example.

[cback]

You'll just lose bonus' you could put toward caster skills.  So, in effect you'll be a crappy mage wearing armor.  Dont bother, that's what you have a tank for.

[Sarevok Anchev]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Spells and skills uses roughly the same mechanics. I do however believe that the bonuses on the armors are far less beneficial than the cloth, plus no fatigue or need to put those valuable points in strength or arcane warrior. And spellcasters could use mithril armor in BG2.

Huh?? When? Where?
Only in mods maybe.
But there are no real armourm which are called "Mithril Armour" in the Baldurs Gate2 series.
1 armour is the +5 chain armour of Drizzt. And mages cant wear them.
Mages couldnt even wear Elven Chainmail.

Wearing armour was only possible for Fighter/Mages etc.
In Vanilla BG is no such thing for real Mages.
In Icewind Dale 2 yes, NWN yes( and that because of the 3rd Edition of D&D

Please tell me if im wrong(didnt play it for some time), but i think not.

[daem3an]

cback wrote...

You'll just lose bonus' you could put toward caster skills.  So, in effect you'll be a crappy mage wearing armor.  Dont bother, that's what you have a tank for.

What bonus does a mage lose by wearing armor?

[panic686original]

cback wrote...

You'll just lose bonus' you could put toward caster skills.  So, in effect you'll be a crappy mage wearing armor.  Dont bother, that's what you have a tank for.

Some people like to role play a character. 

[Beechwell]

cback wrote...

You'll just lose bonus' you could put toward caster skills.  So, in effect you'll be a crappy mage wearing armor.  Dont bother, that's what you have a tank for.

I pretty much expect enemies in DAO to also target my mage, no matter how well the tank is tanking in front. If not a defensive mage is indeed wasted potential and I'll be disappointed.


This thread somehow reminded me of one of the most hated characters in the TDE universe. The sorceress Nahema who was first encountered wearing chain mail at a time this was explicitly forbidden for mages, and turning most of the player characters to stone without anything they could do about it, just because the author thought it was funny.

Maybe I'll recreate her for DA:O. This could be fun

[The Halfman]

A note on the OPs comment on spell bonuses on armour, im not saying that its impossable but I belive that the armour bonus is comeing from haveing the entire set which reduces skill/spell costs becuse it fits togeather better rather than an inherent bonus to magic.



Also to Beechwell im pretty sure I read somewhere that in harder dificaltys then some foes will ignore your tank and go strait after the caster.

[daem3an]

The Halfman wrote...

A note on the OPs comment on spell bonuses on armour, im not saying that its impossable but I belive that the armour bonus is comeing from haveing the entire set which reduces skill/spell costs becuse it fits togeather better rather than an inherent bonus to magic.

You are correct, it's not impossible. If you check the link in my original post, it says in the item descriptions:
"When equipped in a set... the character gains a bonus to defense, and spells or talents cost less to activate."

[AffectedFiddle]

You'll just lose bonus' you could put toward caster skills. So, in effect you'll be a crappy mage wearing armor. Dont bother, that's what you have a tank for.

I give up...like...four spells for a HUGE physical protection boost, potentially nice damage through melee if someone comes at me or I want to be more offensive. You dont even need to spread your stats to strength because your magic rating IS your strength. So your magic will be potent still.



AND...I'm not wearing a robe or pew pew laserbeamz from a silly staff, I get to gut people as well! (There is a spell that makes spells fail against you 75% of the time, whack it on, big 2H....lol enemy mage?).