Dragon Age: Origins Forum Activity

Category: News Archive

Hits: 838

Written by BuckGB on March 22nd, 2009

Tweet

Given that Georg said going Fighter-less will be harder than going Mage-less, I think we can be pretty sure that Mage isn't the strongest class.

No.

Why?

Because is game is party based and balanced that way. There is no such thing as 'strongest class'.

A mage can incapacitate and kill dozens of enemies in the right condition, but will fall quickly if swarmed - so having a warrior or rogue around who can save them from getting swarmed is useful.

A warrior can engage small number of opponenents and kill them with ease - and even survive quite a while when swarmed - but without a mage to throttle the number of enemies coming at him or a rogue to backstab them while they are engaged, he's not going to get far.

Again, it's a party based game, and 'strongest class' doesn't really apply. If you made a party of all warriors, because you thought that it was the strongest class, you'll end up having some serious problems once you hit an enemy that attacks you with mental control abilities :)

I was going to mention the same thing Sylvius. If going without one class is harder than going without another, then one class must necessarily be better, gameplay wise, than another.

No.

Unless you define 'strong' as in 'points spent in strength' (which is up to you), this is not true.

Each class as strength and weaknesses. The weakness of the mage is that you need to be very careful not to make mistakes, because you have lower health and therefore much less margin for error.

The weakness of the warrior is that, while able to withstand a lot more pounding than a mage, you can't throttle large groups of them - and if you get seriously swarmed, it's only a matter of time until they manage to get enough hits on you to take you down. However - due to much higher health, armor and probably even defense, you'll be able to survive being swarmed much much longer and therefore have more time to compensate for mistakes made.

A traditional warrior's job is to tank on the front lines, keeping enemies engaged while your rogue moves into an advantageous position to deal rapid damage and your mage throttles the rate of enemies you are dealing with, supplies tactical buffs or just plain nukes the them.

A traditional rogues job is to take the targets incapacitated by the mage or engaged by the warrior and use his backstab and other abilities to rapidly wear them down.

Of course, nobody forces you to play a 'traditional' character in Dragon Age, after all, it's all about your choice.

The argument that 'class A is stronger because it is more vital to have in the party' only works if you assume that each class operates in the same way, which is not true.

I'd break it down by difficulty level

On harder difficulties, not having a mage is more of a problem than on easier difficulties. But of course, if you're playing hard, we assume you know what you are doing

...

As for warriors having no weaknesses...

My current playthrough is with a strictly melee party (rogues and warriors), and it is quite tough at time.

Like when that bloodmage hit the party with the mass paralysis, then proceeded to grease us up and throw a match (in form of a flame blast).

Mental resistance is a nice thing to have.

I started my first play through as a fighter cuz that is usually what I am when I roleplay. I definitely enjoyed my two-handed maul swinging dwarf berzerker. With the right armor, weapon and feats, I was lethal in one on one combat with pretty much anyone/thing. With my party behind me, I was able to finish the game handily.

The next pass through, I played a mage (what I thought would be the counter-point to the fighter) and found her to be equally powerful, just in a different way. Sure, if the enemy got up close to me I was at a distinct disadvantage, but it was very difficult for them to get close. And, again with the back-up of the party, I was able to finish the game handily.

To be honest, I think I likely died more often as a fighter simply because I was too confidant that I could win. This doesn't mean that the mage is more powerful, just that they are played differently.

When I'm done my next play through (rogue) I'll be better able to judge how they fit in too.

You bet there is. Achievements break the immersion of roleplaying when you have to worry about unlocking some game mechanics. They work in a Street Fighter game, but not in epic PC RPGs.

Besides, what's the point keeping the templar class hidden? It's like in Baldur's Gate 2 you would first have to play the game through with a fighter, thief or mage, before you can unlock a paladin or sorcerer.....

Well Well.

Too bad, because we got achievements ... but they have nothing to do with the specializations.

We've said this before: all specializations require you to find a way of unlocking them, be it a trainer (e.g. the person who can teach it to you) or a manual you acquire or some other way. That has nothing to do with achievements, it's just the way we designed the game.

However, after you have learned about them, we think it is a neach touch to allow you to immediately access these specializations on subsequent replays - because some of them have rather long, involved quests (that yield other rewards as well) - and some of those quests may only appear towards a later part of the game.

As such, allowing you access to your previously unlocked specializations give you some nice room for experimenting with character development on subsequent builds.

Whether or not there is an achievement for unlocking specializations (which I won't confirm or deny) has nothign to do with this mechanic.

And yea, that won't change.

I'm not sure why it is a "Dark Fantasy," as opposed to, say, The Lord of the Rings, but I enjoyed it

I'm glad you enjoyed the book, but... seriously? I'm a little baffled that someone who's actually read it would think the book is like Lord of the Rings because I can't think of anything beyond the most superficial elements that they actually have in common. Do you think that "Epic High Fantasy" would seriously be a better category?

• Prev
• Next