Game News Dave Gaider on DA classes design

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: BioWare; Dragon Age

David Gaider has made some comments on <a href=http://www.bioware.com/games/dragon_age/>Dragon Age</a> classes design and restrictions, and since it's a slow day...
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><b>Rail-roading</b>: Rail-roaded is a pretty loaded term, as is stereotype. There are development paths available, as well as other classes -- though if what you're asking is whether or not wizards in DA get access to anything beyond basic melee skills, no they don't. Nor should they, really, in light of the fact that we're using a class system and the way that the DA wizard works in particular.
<br>
<br>
<b>Multiclassing</b>: It depends on what you mean by hybrid. If you mean mixing any two classes, then no. There's lots of customization paths for classes to take, but we have very distinct class roles -- magic, for instance, lies in the hands of the very few in the DA world and having anyone being able to pick up mage levels willy-nilly would rather dilute that.
<br>
<br>
Does that not sound appetizing? Perhaps not to someone taking the Goldilocks approach to classes, but personally I think it's more important that the classes fit the game and especially the world, first -- this isn't D&D, after all.
<br>
<br>
<b>Undead-fighting Clerics</b>: Well, there's no class like that so I can say no. As for those classes which are meant for melee, they're free to steer their development in a number of ways... as long as those ways conform to the general class -- that being the nature and purpose of having a class, after all.
<br>
<br>
<b>Wizards</b>: It's not a melee class, so yes... they don't have access to melee skills.
<br>
<br>
Well, let's see. Insofar as whether or not mages can wear armor, I don't think it's been nailed down just yet, though we certainly do have ideas on the matter. So your opinions on the subject are welcome.
<br>
<br>
Myself, I tend to think of there being two basic philosophies of combat: the "don't get hit" philosophy and the "don't take damage" philosophy.
<br>
<br>
The former is going to rely on speed and agility and on avoiding getting hit to begin with -- but when they get hit, they're going to get hit hard. The latter is going to get hit repeatedly -- but they're going to take less damage from those blows, or none at all. Both of these should be valid ways to fight.
<br>
<br>
Mages aren't fighters... BUT the philosophy applies to them as well. Do they remain agile enough to get away from combat and avoid getting hit? Or do they take the blow and less damage and hope that they can deal with whatever is hitting them quickly? I would prefer not to restrict spellcasters from wearing armor per se, but rather provide some logical reasons why you're not likely to see them wearing armor very much. Such as:
<br>
<br>
- armor is cumbersome and spellcasters tend to be physically too weak to wear it properly.
<br>
<br>
- heavier armor tires you out more quickly, a fact which applies both to warriors (the tank fighter fights just as well but can't fight at full strength for as long) as well as spellcasters (they regain mana at a slower rate the more armor they are wearing).
<br>
<br>
So long as you don't have a system where there are no drawbacks to wearing armor, you don't have to fear having your spellcasters wear it -- and trying to come up with in-game rationalizations to support system shortcomings should always be a last resort.
<br>
<br>
Now, before anyone thinks otherwise, this is mostly my opinion as the armor system is not yet fully realized -- yet this is where I think it should be heading. Naturally any system you have is going to rely on many other systems for its underpinnings (let's say we decide that mana does not regenerate during combat -- well, then, obviously we would need to rethink the armor system as it applies to casters) so there could be a lot of changes (and arguments, probably) before the final system sees the light of day. But this might tell you where I, at least, sit on this particular point.
<br>
<br>
<b>Sneak attacks</b>: I don't think everyone should be able to get access to "sneak attack". Everyone should be able to score a critical hit on vital areas, sure, but if you're going to make a distinction in the overall fighting style at the class level there's a distinction to be made between the tank fighter and the finesse fighter -- and using stealth and swiftness to your advantage definitely falls into the finesse side of things.
<br>
<br>
Arguing that such a basic question of fighting style not be class-oriented is more of an argument not to have classes at all -- which is fine, if that's what you want to argue, but it's pretty fundamental to the nature of classes to begin with.</blockquote>Opinions?
<br>
<br>

 

[Volourn]

My opinion is that you should share your opinion on your 'news' before we lowlies share our opinion.

Uh.. yeah... that's it. :!:

 

[jiujitsu]

I... agree with Volourn... about VD forcing his opinion on us... what the fuck is WRONG WITH ME!?

Yea, I was disappointed that you didn't go "HAY THIS GUY IS LEWSER" or "ZOMG I LUV HIM. :SECKS:"

Anyway, my opinion is that what he said sounds good. Or at least it sounds logical.

 

[Micmu]

I just hope there will be enough classes and enough development paths for them. Nothing worse than having a generic figther, mage, thief, assasin.
The armor for mages thing... Personally I would rather see an artifical restriction, like slower spellcasting, failure chance or fixed less efficiency... But Ok.
As long as the system really discourages mages from wearing an armor and doesn't allow them to powergame (too easily or even inadvertedly) to a level where they can wear armor efficiently.
I'll keep my hopes up. So far it sounds good... if done right. My humble opinion.

 

[Vault Dweller]

My opinion is that you should share your opinion on your 'news' before we lowlies share our opinion.

Uh.. yeah... that's it. :!:

My apologies. Sometimes I forget that I'm supposed to tell you what to think. :wink:
Anyway...

If you mean mixing any two classes, then no. There's lots of customization paths for classes to take, but we have very distinct class roles...

I like the first part - I was never fond of the fighter/thief/cleric/barbarian/mage concept. That's the retarded part of DnD. The classes were too narrow, so you had to combine them for some extra abilities. Diablo 2, for example, had a lot of room within each class, allowing many distinctive builds. If DA has a similar class setup, then it's great, if not - and that's the second part about having "very distinctive class roles", then it may be questionable.

I mean, why mages shouldn't have access to melee skills? Augmented with magic, they could be formidable fighters. Options are good.

-- magic, for instance, lies in the hands of the very few in the DA world and having anyone being able to pick up mage levels willy-nilly would rather dilute that.

I like that. People shouldn't be learning magic just like that, when they killed a few goblins and figured that next time they want to kill them with a fireball.

Myself, I tend to think of there being two basic philosophies of combat: the "don't get hit" philosophy and the "don't take damage" philosophy.

I like that. I agree with that philosophy and that's what I used for AoD combat concept: light fighter who is hard to hit, easy to kill vs heavy fighter who is easy to hit, hard to kill because of armor DR.

Mages aren't fighters... BUT the philosophy applies to them as well. Do they remain agile enough to get away from combat and avoid getting hit? Or do they take the blow and less damage and hope that they can deal with whatever is hitting them quickly?

I would prefer to see an option to make that choice

- armor is cumbersome and spellcasters tend to be physically too weak to wear it properly.

Don't understand that. Why should they be weak? Why can't they wear it properly? I'd rather see some natural and more interesting restrictions like can't cast lightning spells in metal armor for obvious reasons or can't cast protection spells on armor, so you have to specialize either in armor skills, assuming there are some, or protective magic, etc.

Sneak attacks: I don't think everyone should be able to get access to "sneak attack". Everyone should be able to score a critical hit on vital areas, sure, but if you're going to make a distinction in the overall fighting style at the class level there's a distinction to be made between the tank fighter and the finesse fighter -- and using stealth and swiftness to your advantage definitely falls into the finesse side of things.

I think that sneak attack option should come from sneaking and critical hit skill(s). Thus, it should be available to everyone who has those skills developed to a certain level. Rogues should have bonuses to those skills and the sneak attack option itself.

My 2 cents.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

The armor for mages thing... Personally I would rather see an artifical restriction, like slower spellcasting, failure chance or fixed less efficiency... But Ok.

As long as the system really discourages mages from wearing an armor and doesn't allow them to powergame (too easily or even inadvertedly) to a level where they can wear armor efficiently.
I'll keep my hopes up. So far it sounds good... if done right. My humble opinion.

I hate the armorless mage thing. I can see where thieves would have trouble with armor, because they're sneaking around and climbing stuff, but mages don't really have a good reason not to wear armor.

I don't really buy the "mages are physically weak" thing, either. We're talking about magic here, and all you have to have for it is the ability to memorize rules and come up with new ways to deal with the laws of magic. Well, strong people can be smart as well. Not all engineers and scientists in the real world are puny little pissants.

I would personally love to see DA move away from classes entirely, with maybe a pre-defined set of skill clusters for what your character wants to do. Making wizards a class without having access to melee skills is pretty lame.

 

[Volourn]

"I would personally love to see DA move away from classes entirely"

Get over it. DA is having classes. That isn't gonna change. Besides, I thought you weren't gonna buy any more BIO games.


Anyways, as for armour wearing mages. I'm neiutral on it. However, D&D used to have a good way to deal with. It was real simple. Armour was too encumbersome to work somatic type spells, and intervered in the casting of them. Lots of people whined about it; but it made sense. Sounds abitrary; but it works.


"I don't really buy the "mages are physically weak" thing, either"

Good for you, moron. It was never for sell anyways. And, again, it makes sense in a fantasy sense. If you fcous solely on the study of magic that literlaly takes all the time. And, no, mages aren't always weka anyways. Even in basic D&D, mages could have 18 strength, dumbass. The inbaility to use armour went far beyond strength.

In essence, you are a powergamer. You want the perfect character who can blow shit up with magic powers, and cleave giants in two with your uber sword. LAME!


VD: I agree, and disagree with your comments.

 

[Vault Dweller]

VD: I agree, and disagree with your comments.

Cool.

 

[Micmu]

I agree with Volourn here, in a fantasy sense magic might not be something "anyone" could learn, it takes life of dedication.
Of course we don't know DA's setting&lore yet, but I suppose it's that kind of a game. As D.Gaider said, magic is for "special" people in DA.
I kinda like VD's idea with lightning spells & metal armor. But it shouldn't be taken to extremes. Having a mage in a most heavy tank armor gives him an overpowering benefit. He should sacrifice something for that. More than just a loss of mobility, in my opinion.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Good for you, moron. It was never for sell anyways. And, again, it makes sense in a fantasy sense. If you fcous solely on the study of magic that literlaly takes all the time. And, no, mages aren't always weka anyways. Even in basic D&D, mages could have 18 strength, dumbass. The inbaility to use armour went far beyond strength.

And you're a dumbass. Chemists have a life of dedication in front of them, and that doesn't stop them from taking some time to work out or be healthy. Hell, even if they don't, there's nothing stopping them from being big and burly naturally.

In essence, you are a powergamer. You want the perfect character who can blow shit up with magic powers, and cleave giants in two with your uber sword. LAME!

If I were a powergamer using magic, I would just focus on magic pumping instead of saying they should allow the player to diversify. Thinking has never been your strong suit, has it?

I agree with Volourn here, in a fantasy sense magic might not be something "anyone" could learn, it takes life of dedication.

Just remember: When you're agreeing with Volourn, odds are that you're wrong about something.

I kinda like VD's idea with lightning spells & metal armor. But it shouldn't be taken to extremes. Having a mage in a most heavy tank armor gives him an overpowering benefit. He should sacrifice something for that. More than just a loss of mobility, in my opinion.

That depends on how you're dealing with the lightning, doesn't it? If you're calling it from the sky and directing it at bad guys, then your armor isn't an issue, is it? Just the fact you can direct lightning in the first place should suggest that you have control over the potential between two points, the caster and the target. If you're doing that, then armor won't get in the way either.

Heck, didn't Gandalf wear a breast plate under his robes? So, where the hell is this mages can't wear armor crap coming from, anyway?

 

[Vault Dweller]

That depends on how you're dealing with the lightning, doesn't it? If you're calling it from the sky and directing it at bad guys, then your armor isn't an issue, is it? Just the fact you can direct lightning in the first place should suggest that you have control over the potential between two points, the caster and the target. If you're doing that, then armor won't get in the way either.

That was just an example. Whether or not it would work depends on the magic system. If you have a DnD, mostly damage-oriented, setup with many different spells, and where not using lightning spells isn't really a problem, then what I suggested is not a restriction. If you have a sizable lightning magic and a trait-oriented system where there are good reasons to use lightning in certain cases, and where the nature of magic is such that caster is a conduit between a certain element and target, then wearing metal is definitely a bad idea.

 

[Jason]

I'm not trying to be a troll (at the moment), but it sounds like VD and Saint are arguing for a Morrowind type of system. Options are nice, but so are consequences for gameplay reasons. And yes, I know I must be wrong about many things if I'm agreeing with Volourn.

EDIT: I just realized that VD was arguing for "natural and more interesting restrictions" rather than against restrictions altogether. So .. uh, your mother's a whore and stuff.

 

[FireWolf]

The big issue here seems to be mages and armour. I want to know whether they're going the DEX = AC = chance to be hit rout, or AC = damage reduction rout. My preference would be for heavier armour to reduce damge taken, but affect how much you can dodge. Perhaps armour profieciency would enable better use of the armour for glancing blows; taking a hit on the armour in such a manner as to reduce or nullify the damage entirely.

I see no real reason to restrict a mage to no armour. On the face of it, this makes a mage a theoretical powerhouse, unless you take into account that it'll reduce proficiency in other areas. If you go with the above example, where heavier armour reduces mobility, this would theoretically limit, or reduce the potency of, spells being cast. Or at least make them longer to cast. The mention of fighters tiring from using armour in combat also would affect mages.

I think that armour should affect everyone in the same way: mobility/agility. It makes sense. Of course, without knowing how the magic system works, its checks and balances, the rules defining effectiveness of spells, their damage potential and so on, it is difficult to judge precisely how armour would impact its implementation.

 

[obediah]

I don't think you can compare class vs skill based without also discussing party vs single character.

In a single character game, the class system falls apart completely as NWN shows us. If you going to survive on your own in a violent world, you need to be a jack-of-all-trades or at least have some divergence in your skills.

In a party that works together (i.e. not a player-controlled character and 1-5 idiotic fucking NPCs), the archetypes of the class system comes out a lot better. A party of specialists will generally do much better than a party of generalists. If fighter Jim decids he wants to put up the sword for a few months and learn how to apply bandages, that's great for him personally. But he's now fallen behind his comrades in his ability to fill his primary role.

EDIT: On the mage-armor thing. I really don't care either way. As long as the magic system is interesting and the rules don't feel arbitrary.

 

[Shevek]

I actually like DnD (2e) multiclassing. Its fun to play as a mage/thief. or a fighter/mage etc. Well done 3E prestige hybrids can be fun too. I will admit this is more the munchkin in me than the roleplayer that likes this though.

 

[sabishii]

And you're a dumbass. Chemists have a life of dedication in front of them, and that doesn't stop them from taking some time to work out or be healthy. Hell, even if they don't, there's nothing stopping them from being big and burly naturally.

Well, that's assuming that being a mage is similar to being a chemist in terms of difficulty. If being a mage took 10x the amount of dedication, though, then they would definitely be weak.

Also, considering chemists, yes they do have time to work out and be healthy, but that still may not be enough for them to have enough fortitude to be wearing armor day-in/day-out. For example, an every day average Joe may work out 3-4 times a week, but that doesn't mean he can just jump into the Army without further training. This Joe would most likely not be able to carry a couple dozen pounds of equipment across rough landscapes as an actual soldier does, in spite of the fact that by civilian terms he is quite fit.

On the other hand, I do see how there can be exceptions. Perhaps - if there is to be something like "traits" from Fallout - then a mage could pick the "trait" to be able to wear armo, due to being exceptionally strong, sacrificing picking a different "trait" such as being able to regen mana faster.

 

[RGE]

Mages aren't fighters... BUT the philosophy applies to them as well. Do they remain agile enough to get away from combat and avoid getting hit? Or do they take the blow and less damage and hope that they can deal with whatever is hitting them quickly? I would prefer not to restrict spellcasters from wearing armor per se, but rather provide some logical reasons why you're not likely to see them wearing armor very much.

I thought mages generally relied on their devastating offensive abilities to avoid getting hit. That is, they kill their enemies before they get a chance to land a hit on the mage. We called them artillery mages in Diablo, and they had lousy armour because they wore some fancy mageplate that gave them +1 spell level or something. Due to lag I always played my mage as a battlemage, who focused on AC over spell levels. I had to throw more mana around, but it helped that I wasn't automatically stunlocked whenever the hordes reached my position.

And failing to kill anything before it can attack, mages ought to have defensive magic to deflect blows and missiles. Or invisibility, or teleportation, or turning your opposition blind, or immobilizing them (turning monsters into stone was popular with some artillery mages, but oh so boring ). When you have magic, you've got options. :D

I agree that magic should be special. An easy way to make it so would be to give it an initial cost so high that the powergamer would be a fool not to get the best out of the magic at the expense of other stuff. But apparently it's more fun to make classes. Because classes are kind of old fashioned, and that's what fantasy is all about.

It kind of seems to me as if they're making Diablo Age, what with the different customization paths confined to strict classes. Not bad for an actiongame, but it sucks for a roleplaying game. In Diablo II I wanted to do melee with a necromancer, and it worked. Barely. Can't blame an actiongame for not offering all the customization of a roleplaying game, but if I'm going to consider DA a roleplaying game, it's going to have to offer me more roleplaying abilities than Diablo II. I blame humans for classbased games. Death to the humans. :evil:

Sneak attack shouldn't be a skill or ability, it should be an option to spend points on attack skill while ignoring defense skill and hit points (if those can be bought for points). That'll make the sneak attacker formidable when attacking, but woe the sneak attacker who gets attacked before killing their target, because then they'll start bleeding all over the place. "No, we want to have a special class with special special stuff for their superspecial ability to stab some unlucky opponent in the back." Oh yeah. So what is a special forces guy then? Soldier or assassin? Perhaps a little bit of both?

 

[Micmu]

Going too far with "very distinct class roles" and having like three or four archetype classes and then even having own, unique skills for each of them would really, really suck. I understand this for magic skills, but fully Diablo-like classes in a non-action RPG is a frightening thought.

 

[Zufuriin]

If you have a sizable lightning magic and a trait-oriented system where there are good reasons to use lightning in certain cases, and where the nature of magic is such that caster is a conduit between a certain element and target, then wearing metal is definitely a bad idea.

That still leaves glass, leather and non-conductive materials. Also, couldn't a mage summon armor (MW style) that weighs/restricts very little?

I am not too concerned on how armor on mages is implemented, but I have always felt that mages should be too frail to withstand numerous physical attacks. Ranged offensive and defensive attacks should be the primary concern of a mage.

 

[Vault Dweller]

That still leaves glass, leather and non-conductive materials.

Obviously, leather armor's protective capability wouldn't match that of a heavy metal armor.

Also, couldn't a mage summon armor (MW style) that weighs/restricts very little?

That sounds kinda stupid, that whole armor-summoning thing, but like I said, it depends on a magic system. In a game where you can summon armor, my suggestion wouldn't work.

 

[Volourn]

"The big issue here seems to be mages and armour. I want to know whether they're going the DEX = AC = chance to be hit rout, or AC = damage reduction rout."

If you actually did some research; it has already been stated what BIO plans to do with this stuff in DA.

Damn fools.

 

[MrBrown]

The big issue here seems to be mages and armour. I want to know whether they're going the DEX = AC = chance to be hit rout, or AC = damage reduction rout.

They're using armor == damage reduction.

http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.htm ... 5&forum=84



As for the topic, I'm fine as long as they have classes that have something to do with the world they've created, rather than being just generic stuff like DnD.

Other than that, I don't think we know enough about the game to say anything, really...

 

[FireWolf]

If you actually did some research; it has already been stated what BIO plans to do with this stuff in DA.

Damn fools.

You're a douche. Some people don't spend every waking hour on different boards trawling through posts for snippets of information. The whole reason I frequent the Codex is to get information on RPGs and have a bit of a discussion about aspects of RPG games. You'll note I asked a question there, "I want to know". MrBrown actually answered my question and linked me to where he got it from, and for that I thank him. You, on the other hand, are a smarmy little fuck who's out to defend their own little corner of the internet, gloring in any little advantage in knowledge you have, doing no one any favours.

Kindly take a toaster with you next time you bathe.

 

[Neverwhere]

It kind of seems to me as if they're making Diablo Age, what with the different customization paths confined to strict classes. Not bad for an actiongame, but it sucks for a roleplaying game. In Diablo II I wanted to do melee with a necromancer, and it worked. Barely. Can't blame an actiongame for not offering all the customization of a roleplaying game, but if I'm going to consider DA a roleplaying game, it's going to have to offer me more roleplaying abilities than Diablo II. I blame humans for classbased games. Death to the humans. :evil:

I think obediah convincingly rebutted this argument above. In a party-based game, classes are just an expression of the division of labour that a party is meant to accomplish in the first place. Of course, opting for a class-based system does not necessarily bar players from selecting abilities from another class. As far as I know, cross-class skills simply come at a higher cost in the latest AD&D rules. Sounds sensible to me - don't know whether DA will allow for any of this, though.

 

[Volourn]

"The whole reason I frequent the Codex is to get information on RPGs and have a bit of a discussion about aspects of RPG games."

Stop crying like the baby. The Codex has already covered BIO's plan for how how armour/ac works in Dragoon Age. In fact, the Codex did it rather recently.

So, your exuse falls flat.