Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Just completed Dragon Age: Origins

the_shadow

Arcane
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
1,179
PorkyThePaladin said:
Even if that were true (which is debatable, since you don't *need* to select a specialist if you want to play as a mage, and it doesn't limit your spell selection that much),

Well, it defines it somewhat, and then he conveniently "forgot" to quote the other part of that argument, ie "Moreover, in terms of lore/role-playing/immersion, which spells your mage uses define them. A mage using Fireballs would look/feel completely different from one casting Summoning Conjuration spells." This is basic RPG stuff and why you have different schools of spells in the first place.

But even a specialist in a particular school of magic wouldn't only cast spells from that particular school of magic. They'd be able to cast them with greater proficiency, and they'd probably occupy a greater proportion of their known spell repertoire, but even a mage who specialized in necromancy would likely know how to cast Magic Missile.

PorkyThePaladin said:
Ok, here is my argument again:

1. We are talking about early game.
2. We are talking about a regular player without advance meta-knowledge of the game.
3. At character creation and the first 1-2 level ups, the player has to choose a small number of spells.

OK.

4. At that point, since the player has no meta-knowledge, they don't know what spells they will find/buy in the future.

Ah, I understand why my opinion differs from yours now. I think it's a reasonable assumption that a Level 1 spell would be found/sold at some point early in a campaign. Even so, missing out learning Magic Missile isn't that big a deal.
 

purpleblob

Savant
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
564
Location
Sydney
Demi Lich in Athkatla docks weren't he?

This was my exact thought :lol: I thought someone got confused and thought Kangaxx is from DA:O. I was like isn't Kangaxx from BG2 and not from DA:O? I had to look up Gaxkang to see wtf it is. To me, that is also failure theory to say DA:O was awesome.
 

Gay-Lussac

Arcane
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
7,563
Location
Your mom
I enjoyed this game on release quite a bit. It was at least memorable enough that I remember many moments of it 8 years later, in particular pissing on Andraste's (?) ashes to get my edgy slum elf character the Reaver specialisation.

The combat is really nice if you like RtwP, there's a decent amount of character customisation (I'm a sucker for subclasses), some decent, though mostly cosmetic, C&C.

Where I think the game fails, though, is the writing, just the sheer volume of exposition they try to shove down the player's throath ocasionally. It's pace-breaking and mind numbing. Characters go on and on over shit nobody cares about, and it's often accompanied by uninspired voice acting.

I thought about replaying it, but the prospect of going through the Fade again just kills my will to go through with it. Didn't mind the deep roads, though.
 
Last edited:

Mustawd

Guest
Why not? Anyone who has played RPGs in general knows about the Identifying mechanic, so when you read the spell description, it sounds like something you would want to have.

A. Aren't there games where identifying an item is as easy as finding a scroll or paying an NPC to identify stuff? Thus making identify a useless spell?

B. So using meta knowledge about this particular game is min/maxing but using meta knowledge of every other rpg you've played is simply rping? Umm, ok.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
Poor stupid men. you already lost.

Then why does it bother you so much that you find yourself unable to stop posting in a thread where both sides are making fun of you? Is it because I am actually winning? :)

I thought DAO was harder than Baldur's Gate 1. Though I hated DAO and loved BG1. It dragged on too long and all the difficulty came from fighting hundreds of enemies in every encounter.

It is harder if you don't roll a mage main (and only use Morrigan, Wynner, etc as support), but generally for stupid reasons. Like enemies/bosses having tons of hitpoints (Revenants anyone?), or using some stupid gimmicky abilities (like when you get their health down to a certain point, they summon 20 more minions or something).

As a game, BG1 was a hundred times better. It felt like a real world, had fun exploration, better class balance and leveling curve, infinitely better dialogue (if only because it was shorter and to the point), less grindy combat.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
But even a specialist in a particular school of magic wouldn't only cast spells from that particular school of magic. They'd be able to cast them with greater proficiency, and they'd probably occupy a greater proportion of their known spell repertoire, but even a mage who specialized in necromancy would likely know how to cast Magic Missile.

That's true but in the original argument, we were talking about the very early start in a game like BG1, where you can only select a very small number of spells. So while eventually, I might get others and cast them sometimes, at first, I would try to stick to those that most define my character.

Ah, I understand why my opinion differs from yours now. I think it's a reasonable assumption that a Level 1 spell would be found/sold at some point early in a campaign. Even so, missing out learning Magic Missile isn't that big a deal.

You never know. And for role-playing reasons, I would prefer not to miss out on spells that are related to how I want to craft my character.

Where I think the game fails, though, is the writing, just the sheer volume of exposition they try to shove down the player's throath ocasionally. It's pace-breaking and mind numbing. Characters go on and on over shit nobody cares about, and it's often accompanied by uninspired voice acting.

I disagreed with most of your post, but the quoted part, my god, I think everyone can agree on this. Never has dialogue hurt me so.

A. Aren't there games where identifying an item is as easy as finding a scroll or paying an NPC to identify stuff? Thus making identify a useless spell?

You are just used to shitty modern RPGs where gold runs like cheap diarrhea. In BG1, and most older games, gold was a valuable resource, and a spell that would save you gold was actually extremely useful.

B. So using meta knowledge about this particular game is min/maxing but using meta knowledge of every other rpg you've played is simply rping? Umm, ok.

Yeah, because to do the first, you have to explicitly go out of your way, look up stuff before playing, and essentially cheat. The second happens naturally from simply playing.
 

JBro

Arbiter
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
701
It is harder if you don't roll a mage main (and only use Morrigan, Wynner, etc as support), but generally for stupid reasons. Like enemies/bosses having tons of hitpoints (Revenants anyone?), or using some stupid gimmicky abilities (like when you get their health down to a certain point, they summon 20 more minions or something).

I actually did roll a mage. I think I was just terrible at building characters at the time. I played BG1 for the first time not that long ago.
 

donkeymong

Scholar
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
210
Demi Lich in Athkatla docks weren't he?
That was Kangaxx, which was a nice step up from Irenicus on the overall boss difficulty curve of BG2.

Gaxkang is the Dragon Age homage to that boss. Unlocking him takes about as much time, but the payoff is not nearly as good - this is because he is just a slightly beefed up demon mage, unlike the Demi Lich in Athkatla that had immunity to all but the best weapons in the game as well as a permadeath instant cast spell.



Unlocking the mystery of that damn door and summoning the secret boss of DA:O felt pretty good, but the fight as a whole was one big faceroll that could be solo'd. The Broodmother was more interesting from a mechanical standpoint, Flemeth was harder, and the Archdemon was infinitely more epic.

It could be soloed because the game allowed 100 percent magic immunity, which was retarded.
 

the_shadow

Arcane
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
1,179
But even a specialist in a particular school of magic wouldn't only cast spells from that particular school of magic. They'd be able to cast them with greater proficiency, and they'd probably occupy a greater proportion of their known spell repertoire, but even a mage who specialized in necromancy would likely know how to cast Magic Missile.

That's true but in the original argument, we were talking about the very early start in a game like BG1, where you can only select a very small number of spells. So while eventually, I might get others and cast them sometimes, at first, I would try to stick to those that most define my character.

Well, that would be one possible way of role-playing. I'd argue that if I were role-playing an adventuring mage, that mage would consider the practicality of a spell for their current scenario. For example, even a diviner probably wouldn't learn Infravision if they had an elf in the party.


PorkyThePaladin said:
Ah, I understand why my opinion differs from yours now. I think it's a reasonable assumption that a Level 1 spell would be found/sold at some point early in a campaign. Even so, missing out learning Magic Missile isn't that big a deal.

You never know. And for role-playing reasons, I would prefer not to miss out on spells that are related to how I want to craft my character.

You never know with 100% certainty, but it's a reasonable assumption, just like it's a reasonable assumption that you'll probably find a spear or staff during your adventurers, so investing a point in spear proficiency won't be wasted.
 

Absinthe

Arcane
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
4,062
Conversely, warriors are completely shafted. Defense determines chance of avoidance, which is the only real defensive mechanism in DA:O, and only rogues can effectively invest into it.
Are you a LARPer? Just make a dexterity warrior. It works fine with daggers and archery. You can go dagger & shield if you want.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
Well, that would be one possible way of role-playing. I'd argue that if I were role-playing an adventuring mage, that mage would consider the practicality of a spell for their current scenario. For example, even a diviner probably wouldn't learn Infravision if they had an elf in the party.

You could also role-play, to use a common 'Codex term, a mage specializing in cuckoldry, who would learn Infravision, Knock, and Sleep, and perform valuable services for other party members while they did everything of note and got all the praise and chicks. Look dude, you can role-play whatever you want, but if I am playing a master of arcane arts, I am going with cool direct damage spells, and not gimped utility stuff.

You never know with 100% certainty, but it's a reasonable assumption, just like it's a reasonable assumption that you'll probably find a spear or staff during your adventurers, so investing a point in spear proficiency won't be wasted.

That's actually a great analogy for my point. Say you were creating a spear based warrior, and at chargen, you had access to a lower quality spear or a higher quality axe, which would you grab? I care about role-playing, so I would definitely grab the spear. I can find a better spear later (or level it to be closer to the Magic Missile analogy), but why should I waste my time on stuff that has nothing to do with how I want to craft my character?

Are you a LARPer? Just make a dexterity warrior. It works fine with daggers and archery. You can go dagger & shield if you want.

Yeah, cause a dagger warrior is really badass. Maybe later he can specialize in kitchen knives.
 

pippin

Guest
Demi Lich in Athkatla docks weren't he?
That was Kangaxx, which was a nice step up from Irenicus on the overall boss difficulty curve of BG2.

Gaxkang is the Dragon Age homage to that boss. Unlocking him takes about as much time, but the payoff is not nearly as good - this is because he is just a slightly beefed up demon mage, unlike the Demi Lich in Athkatla that had immunity to all but the best weapons in the game as well as a permadeath instant cast spell.



Unlocking the mystery of that damn door and summoning the secret boss of DA:O felt pretty good, but the fight as a whole was one big faceroll that could be solo'd. The Broodmother was more interesting from a mechanical standpoint, Flemeth was harder, and the Archdemon was infinitely more epic.

It could be soloed because the game allowed 100 percent magic immunity, which was retarded.


you can use protection from undead on bg2's lich as well
 

Lostpleb

Learned
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
380
you can use protection from undead on bg2's lich as well
There were plenty of viable tactics that could be used against Kangaxx but the thing is that, even if you had Protection from Undead cast on the entire party, you still had to deal with the Demilich Howl/Wail of the Banshee and his regeneration phase.

Although I can't remember how the PnP ruleset actually explained this, Berserk was an ability that protected from Imprisonment, so you could also have a Berserker (or Minsc) run in with the Crom Faeyr or even Daystar, then try to burst the demi-lich down with a Ring of Ram before he could regenerate. A Mage could also pass around +5 Phantom weapons, in case the crafted ones couldn't be acquired. Fun times figuring this stuff out back in the day.

The point is still that you had to stop and use your head to take down Kangaxx, whereas Gaxkang was really just another point'n click fight that you could approach without much preparation. He would definitely have been a better boss if the devs had applied a magic resistance reduction aura to the room where the fight takes place.
 

Absinthe

Arcane
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
4,062
You could also role-play, to use a common 'Codex term, a mage specializing in cuckoldry, who would learn Infravision, Knock, and Sleep, and perform valuable services for other party members while they did everything of note and got all the praise and chicks. Look dude, you can role-play whatever you want, but if I am playing a master of arcane arts, I am going with cool direct damage spells, and not gimped utility stuff.

That's actually a great analogy for my point. Say you were creating a spear based warrior, and at chargen, you had access to a lower quality spear or a higher quality axe, which would you grab? I care about role-playing, so I would definitely grab the spear. I can find a better spear later (or level it to be closer to the Magic Missile analogy), but why should I waste my time on stuff that has nothing to do with how I want to craft my character?

Yeah, cause a dagger warrior is really badass. Maybe later he can specialize in kitchen knives.
You know, the codex term for what you are advocating is LARPing. The game doesn't give a shit about whether your mage specializes in support magics over combat magics or whether your warrior uses a dagger instead of a sword. The game isn't role-playing here. You are just roleplaying by yourself, behind the screen. There's an argument to be had in whether the game should care (and here on the Codex we are generally great fans of reactivity), but here you're bitching out game mechanics based on your own self-imposed rules even though there are clearly options to do what you asked (you claimed that warriors have inferior defense to rogues, even though you can clearly stack dex and use daggers as your weapon of choice). You also delivered an amusing and retarded tirade against a mage picking up utility spells simply because it hurts your self-esteem somehow.
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,823
Although I can't remember how the PnP ruleset actually explained this, Berserk was an ability that protected from Imprisonment, so you could also have a Berserker (or Minsc) run in with the Crom Faeyr or even Daystar, then try to burst the demi-lich down with a Ring of Ram before he could regenerate. A Mage could also pass around +5 Phantom weapons, in case the crafted ones couldn't be acquired. Fun times figuring this stuff out back in the day.
Barbarians dont have that ability and imprisonment isnt used like that. Imprisonment is a level 9 with very specific wording that would make it impossible to cast it against 99% of the enemies in the game, you have to know them by name and at least be acquainted with them before being able to cast it.
Overall its only dangerous against rivals of a sort, and the only real defense is not being close to the caster, or interrupt him.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
You know, the codex term for what you are advocating is LARPing. The game doesn't give a shit about whether your mage specializes in support magics over combat magics or whether your warrior uses a dagger instead of a sword. The game isn't role-playing here. You are just roleplaying by yourself, behind the screen. There's an argument to be had in whether the game should care (and here on the Codex we are generally great fans of reactivity), but here you're bitching out game mechanics based on your own self-imposed rules even though there are clearly options to do what you asked (you claimed that warriors have inferior defense to rogues, even though you can clearly stack dex and use daggers as your weapon of choice).

I could also stack dexterity as a mage. Then I could run around as the world's first dagger mage. What's your point?

There is a reason for archetypes in RPGs. They provide an outline for different types of characters. Why would anyone be a dagger warrior? Rogues use daggers because they are all about subterfuge, so it makes sense for them to have a small, easily concealable weapon. Warriors, on the other hand, use large weapons. This is common sense and has nothing to do with your disdain for LARPing.

You also delivered an amusing and retarded tirade against a mage picking up utility spells simply because it hurts your self-esteem somehow.

No, you did not understand what I said at all. I use utility spells all the time on my mages, but what I said was I wouldn't pick a gimped utility spell before picking up spells that define my character.
 

Lostpleb

Learned
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
380
Although I can't remember how the PnP ruleset actually explained this, Berserk was an ability that protected from Imprisonment, so you could also have a Berserker (or Minsc) run in with the Crom Faeyr or even Daystar, then try to burst the demi-lich down with a Ring of Ram before he could regenerate. A Mage could also pass around +5 Phantom weapons, in case the crafted ones couldn't be acquired. Fun times figuring this stuff out back in the day.
Barbarians dont have that ability and imprisonment isnt used like that. Imprisonment is a level 9 with very specific wording that would make it impossible to cast it against 99% of the enemies in the game, you have to know them by name and at least be acquainted with them before being able to cast it.
Overall its only dangerous against rivals of a sort, and the only real defense is not being close to the caster, or interrupt him.
In Baldur's Gate 2, Enrage protects the Berserker from imprisonment. What I meant by the PnP reference was that, until I had read your post, I didn't understand how resisting imprisonment was a matter of willpower, since I had always thought that casting the spell was simply a matter of encasing the target in some kind of tangible stasis field before trapping them beneath the earth.

There is a reason for archetypes in RPGs. They provide an outline for different types of characters. Why would anyone be a dagger warrior? Rogues use daggers because they are all about subterfuge, so it makes sense for them to have a small, easily concealable weapon. Warriors, on the other hand, use large weapons. This is common sense and has nothing to do with your disdain for LARPing.
To be fair, Dragon Age daggers are not your average sissy knives. Look at the concept art, those are pretty much short swords.

latest


Historically speaking, the short sword was one of the most common (and effective) weapon to be found in the hand of a soldier that was equipped with a large shield and a heavy set of armor - the manoeuvrability of the weapon was all that really mattered when you were gearing up to take as much punishment as possible. The romans were pretty big on fielding short swords for their centurions, and wielding one proficiently required quite a bit of dexterity.
 

Commissar Draco

Codexia Comrade Colonel Commissar
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
20,856
Location
Привислинский край
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Divinity: Original Sin 2
My Sword and Board Warror Dorf and Human Nobles wit Templar sub class were quite fun to play, sturdy and with nice difficulty curve too. Yes got some problem with Dragons but for what you have your Mage sloots entourage? Don't play as Mage faggot every time and then whine on Cuckdex that game was too easy you faggots. In fact you had enough companions to play as every class and origin possible... Playing as Human Noble S&B just allowed you to not see emo Alice and his derpy hairesy much; you send him to chopping block, married the Queen and lived happy after as Medieval King: drinking, hunting, Grabbing elf pussies and drilling your Orlesian sloot on side while Ivanka took care of boring stuff like actually administrating the realm and making Feralden Great again. :mrpresident:

Dorf Political intrigue plot was fun... and RP-ing him as Gay Warden Grand Master in Awakening leading all Dorf Party to the fray. :incline:
 
Last edited:

ERYFKRAD

Barbarian
Patron
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
28,235
Strap Yourselves In Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Warriors in DA:O at least had two-three different ways to whack at the enemy.
 

VentilatorOfDoom

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
8,600
Location
Deutschland
Warriors in DAO make the impression of being bad if you insist on S&B or 2H. Dual-wielding with momentum, maxed templar and champion trees make a pretty good char as long as you at the very least split 50-50 between Dex and STR or only take as much STR as required for the armor you wanna wear and put the rest in DEX. You don't even necessarily have to use daggers, although if you max DEX daggers would be optimal, even dual-wielding axes kicks ass. The important thing is to dual-wield with momentum instead of swinging your two-hander in super slomo.
 

donkeymong

Scholar
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
210
Two-handed warrior Champion\Reaver was perfectly fine on all difficulties,and i put everything in strenght, so even Golems got on their ass after a War Cry.
 

ERYFKRAD

Barbarian
Patron
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
28,235
Strap Yourselves In Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Two-handed Berserker-Reaver was ok, but you really needed to watch and maintain abilities and health/stamina levels.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
To be fair, Dragon Age daggers are not your average sissy knives. Look at the concept art, those are pretty much short swords.

latest


Historically speaking, the short sword was one of the most common (and effective) weapon to be found in the hand of a soldier that was equipped with a large shield and a heavy set of armor - the manoeuvrability of the weapon was all that really mattered when you were gearing up to take as much punishment as possible. The romans were pretty big on fielding short swords for their centurions, and wielding one proficiently required quite a bit of dexterity.

Your points are both true, and it's something I thought about when I first saw DA:O daggers, but I have a couple of counter-points:

1. Games have a certain level of abstraction that you kinda have to respect. Even if the daggers in this game look like short swords, the game treats them as daggers, so from a role-playing/game lore perspective, it would be difficult for me to treat them otherwise.
2. While Ancient Romans were devastating with their use of the Gladius (which was essentially a short sword), you have to remember, they fought in tight mass formations, in a very disciplined way, as one unit. Under those circumstances, a shorter sword is actually preferrable to longer ones, because in tight mass formations, there is no room to swing larger swords, and it's easier and more effective to get a small stabbing weapon in between gaps in shields/armor/etc. But in solo/small group situations, which would be much more common for adventurers/RPG characters, it would be a completely different story, with longer swords being much more effective (unless you were stuck in a small hallway or something).
 

Zombra

An iron rock in the river of blood and evil
Patron
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
11,538
Location
Black Goat Woods !@#*%&^
Make the Codex Great Again! RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
On topic:
Since I assume you played some kind of "complete edition" with all the DLC, you missed the most awful part of DA:O. The basic release version of the game features an NPC that attempts to sell you DLC in the context of the game. I don't remember the specifics, but he's some guy in the camp saying something about there's a great treasure at this castle, will you come fight the monsters there and help me?

1. Yes, I am ready for adventure [costs 200 Bioware Points]
2. No thank you, I am a jerk who doesn't help people

Ah, the early days of DLC bullshit. This was my first experience hating Bioware.

Off topic:
It's OK to roleplay a mage who learns one favorite spell and sticks with it the rest of his career, but it's dumb to act like that's how all mages should be. A visual artist who refuses to touch crayons at the age of 3 because later he'll want to be an oil painter is a dumb asshole. He tries to be a 3 year old oil painter and just makes a mess. Meanwhile everyone else starts with finger paint and crayons and watercolor and works their way up to charcoal and oil paint and ink brushes and etc. when it's appropriate for them to learn that, and their careers are both more versatile and their oil painting game ends up just as good as (and very likely better than) the refuser guy. The only thing refuser guy accomplished is sucking when he started out. Mages have spellbooks instead of spell pamphlets for a reason. Other mages would and should be laughing at your "magic missile only" moron.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom