Dragon Age VI: Siege Harder

[Kish]

I find the lack of airlifted enemy waves a marked improvement, for my part.

(Not that I've ever played a Dragon Age game for the combat.)

[Keltest]

I find the lack of airlifted enemy waves a marked improvement, for my part.

(Not that I've ever played a Dragon Age game for the combat.)

Agreed. None of the games have especially amazing combat, but Inquisition's is tolerable enough, and I derive some mild satisfaction from assassinating people with my rogue's burst damage from stealth.

[S@tanicoaldo]

What's your opinion on Mages and Templars? Anyone?

The Tevinter Imperium was right all along, mages should rule and blood magic is just part of life.

Maybe all mages should be sent to an independent nation where they can rule themselves and not bring fear to the inferior humans, Kind of like Magneto’s Genosha.

Now that we know all the bad things people used to blame on mages and blood magic are lies and chantry propaganda and the truth is that it was all caused by elfish shenanigans we are safe to say mages were right and oppressed all along.
The only thing that keeps the Imperium from being perfect is the slavery.

[Morty]

Come to think of it, Vox Rationis brings up an interesting point. Two-handed warriors do exist in a weird space between shield warriors and rogues - they can't really tank, but they don't melt on contact with enemy like rogues. Unless we mean archer rogues, who can pump out damage from a safe distance. But archer rogues serve more or less the same role as melee ones, their borderline OP aside. Then again, I was able to manage with Iron Bull being the only warrior in my party, so they do have some tanking potential. Still a weird halfway-through position. But that's what there being three narrow classes leads to.

[Keltest]

Come to think of it, Vox Rationis brings up an interesting point. Two-handed warriors do exist in a weird space between shield warriors and rogues - they can't really tank, but they don't melt on contact with enemy like rogues. Unless we mean archer rogues, who can pump out damage from a safe distance. But archer rogues serve more or less the same role as melee ones, their borderline OP aside. Then again, I was able to manage with Iron Bull being the only warrior in my party, so they do have some tanking potential. Still a weird halfway-through position. But that's what there being three narrow classes leads to.

Ive discovered that 2h warriors can actually throw around a lot of AoE damage. Ive got one playthrough that's my dwarf reaver and Iron Bull as the frontline backed by two mages for barriers. Iron Bull has whirlwind with the upgrade that pulls in enemies, and my character is focused on the 2h AoE abilities to hit the poor guys he pulls in. While it isn't as effective versus bosses as having a rogue for DPS, ive found it actually kills most grunts better than having a rogue.

[Morty]

I never said they were bad, just that they occupy a bit of a weird place in the game's mechanics. I played a two-handed warrior in DA2 and liked it; Iron Bull is solid enough in Inquisition but I'll never use two-handers there myself. I'm trying to decide on my axe/shield reaver's race now. It's either elf or qunari.

[Giggling Ghast]

I never said they were bad, just that they occupy a bit of a weird place in the game's mechanics. I played a two-handed warrior in DA2 and liked it; Iron Bull is solid enough in Inquisition but I'll never use two-handers there myself. I'm trying to decide on my axe/shield reaver's race now. It's either elf or qunari.

Male or female? Aesthetically, I prefer female elves and male qunari.

You could be a lady elf, romance Iron Bull and then cringe as you imagine their sex life!

[Dienekes]

Male or female? Aesthetically, I prefer female elves and male qunari.

You could be a lady elf, romance Iron Bull and then cringe as you imagine their sex life!

This brings up an interesting line of thought. Can Bull romance a female dwarf? And if so... how?

[Keltest]

This brings up an interesting line of thought. Can Bull romance a female dwarf? And if so... how?

Violently, id imagine.

[Morty]

Male or female? Aesthetically, I prefer female elves and male qunari.

You could be a lady elf, romance Iron Bull and then cringe as you imagine their sex life!

Male. I want to try Dorian's romance, since I like him as a character.

I'm leaning towards an elf, just because a screaming, blood-crazed elf berserker is more atypical than a qunari one. But I also want to side with templars again, and it feels a bit... out of character for a Dalish elf?

This brings up an interesting line of thought. Can Bull romance a female dwarf? And if so... how?

Bull can romance anyone. And I do wish I'd romanced him with my dwarf Inquisitor, just to see what it looks like.

[Giggling Ghast]

This brings up an interesting line of thought. Can Bull romance a female dwarf? And if so... how?

He just ties smaller knots.

Bull can romance anyone. And I do wish I'd romanced him with my dwarf Inquisitor, just to see what it looks like.

Having glanced at the videos on Youtube, it seems to be the same as romancing Iron Bull with any other race/gender. He just needs to crouch.

If you're really curious about what dwarf boobs look like, though, it's a good romance to do.

[Anteros]

I've actually found that rogues can tank reasonably well after the early game. Once you get a "build guard on hit" item you're hitting so many times you basically can't die.

[Inarius]

I've actually found that rogues can tank reasonably well after the early game. Once you get a "build guard on hit" item you're hitting so many times you basically can't die.

Yeah, one guard on hit masterwork plus aoe daggers is enough to keep you maxed on guard for most fights. Couple that with Tempest spec and you're not too far behind KEs and shield warriors for survivability while doing a ton more damage.

[Morty]

I can't say I'd mind having more than one option for tanking than a shield-using warrior - or maybe a two-handed warrior if you stack guard. But it'd need to happen in a less... haphazard and accidental way.

[Keltest]

I can't say I'd mind having more than one option for tanking than a shield-using warrior - or maybe a two-handed warrior if you stack guard. But it'd need to happen in a less... haphazard and accidental way.

I could see a rogue doing crowd control with traps and such, and a mage tanking through magic, like the Arcane Warrior in Origins.

I do think there is a bit of a problem though in that, if mages are so versatile, why would you ever want to play anything else? Even if you have to pick a path and follow it to its conclusion to the exclusion of other paths, theyre still the best to pick at class selection.

[Giggling Ghast]

I do think there is a bit of a problem though in that, if mages are so versatile, why would you ever want to play anything else? Even if you have to pick a path and follow it to its conclusion to the exclusion of other paths, theyre still the best to pick at class selection.

Yes, who would want to experience the thrill of personal combat when you can stand at the back of the fight waving a big stick?

On an unrelated note, this is a rather sweet story:

https://www.ea.com/news/a-very-drago...2?sf52544217=1

[Dienekes]

I can't say I'd mind having more than one option for tanking than a shield-using warrior - or maybe a two-handed warrior if you stack guard. But it'd need to happen in a less... haphazard and accidental way.

In a theoretical perfect game (for me anyway) the classes would be divided like this:

Warriors: primary Tanks
Rogues: primary DPS
Mage: primary Control

And then each would have a specialization that divide primarily into:

Templar: Even Tankier!
Berserker: Now my attacks hurt people!
Champion: Now with Control

Assassin: King of DPS
Duelist: Now I can tank!
Bard: I Control you by singing!

Force Mage: Control is everything!
Arcane Warrior: I'm not made of paper!
Blood Mage: I'm so edgy just touching me causes high DPS

Names being fairly meaningless of course. Where the specializations would make them roughly effective as a base primary class or just unquestionably amazing at their primary focus but with little in the way of utility.

Currently the specializations are kind of set up like this but they're not really balanced right.

It's clear knight enchanter was supposed to be a tankier mage, but in practice she had everything, while the Artificer was supposed to be a more control focused rogue, but using the abilities cut into an archers DPS so completely that they end up being just a mediocre Controller or pick up the passives and ignore the abilities so they can still DPS effectively.

[Anteros]

I do think there is a bit of a problem though in that, if mages are so versatile, why would you ever want to play anything else? Even if you have to pick a path and follow it to its conclusion to the exclusion of other paths, theyre still the best to pick at class selection.

This is easily solved by giving other classes versatility as well. It's a single player game, let people build their characters however they want.

[Morty]

In a theoretical perfect game (for me anyway) the classes would be divided like this:

Warriors: primary Tanks
Rogues: primary DPS
Mage: primary Control

And then each would have a specialization that divide primarily into:

Templar: Even Tankier!
Berserker: Now my attacks hurt people!
Champion: Now with Control

Assassin: King of DPS
Duelist: Now I can tank!
Bard: I Control you by singing!

Force Mage: Control is everything!
Arcane Warrior: I'm not made of paper!
Blood Mage: I'm so edgy just touching me causes high DPS

Names being fairly meaningless of course. Where the specializations would make them roughly effective as a base primary class or just unquestionably amazing at their primary focus but with little in the way of utility.

Currently the specializations are kind of set up like this but they're not really balanced right.

It's clear knight enchanter was supposed to be a tankier mage, but in practice she had everything, while the Artificer was supposed to be a more control focused rogue, but using the abilities cut into an archers DPS so completely that they end up being just a mediocre Controller or pick up the passives and ignore the abilities so they can still DPS effectively.

I'd rather do away with warriors and rogues entirely, but this kind of thing would be harder for BioWare to screw up. I feel like the difference between adding something new and refining the core competence of a class is already there, in a way - compare Champion to Templar and Reaver.

This is easily solved by giving other classes versatility as well. It's a single player game, let people build their characters however they want.

Unfortunately, it's no longer just a single player game, but other than that, yeah. Ideally, there'd be a difference in a warrior tank and a mage tank, even if the role is the same.

[Dienekes]

I'd rather do away with warriors and rogues entirely, but this kind of thing would be harder for BioWare to screw up. I feel like the difference between adding something new and refining the core competence of a class is already there, in a way - compare Champion to Templar and Reaver.

In a way, but I think the balance is where they got it wrong. Champion is certainly the tankiest tank to ever tank. And Reaver is more damage, but I didn't think he was really comparable to a Rogue, and Templar has fairly mediocre buffing and tank abilities leaving it kind of bad. Hell, one of her best numerical abilities only happens if she dies, which is just bad for tanks and control characters.

In any case, reworking the class system completely could theoretically work. I know I'd find just stealing the combat system from Dark Souls, or For Honor more engaging, or hell, I'm curious what could be done with a combat system like the Arkham games have if you add abilities to differentiate the various play styles of nimble, tough, or ranged characters.

But that's not going to happen so I'll stick with just trying to fix what they already have.

[Inarius]

I can't say I'd mind having more than one option for tanking than a shield-using warrior - or maybe a two-handed warrior if you stack guard. But it'd need to happen in a less... haphazard and accidental way.

I wouldn't really say Tempest tanking is that haphazard or accidental. Frost Flask can upgraded to taunt and that was in the game from the very start. It seems like it was put there to make people try out tanking as a rogue and if built right rogues can do it.

I could see a rogue doing crowd control with traps and such, and a mage tanking through magic, like the Arcane Warrior in Origins.

I do think there is a bit of a problem though in that, if mages are so versatile, why would you ever want to play anything else? Even if you have to pick a path and follow it to its conclusion to the exclusion of other paths, theyre still the best to pick at class selection.

Honestly I think mage versatility has been toned down a lot since the first game. They pretty much only excel in crowd control now, while their damage is the worst of the three classes. They also can't really tank because while KEs can soak damage they cant really do anything to draw an enemies attention towards them.

[Morty]

In a way, but I think the balance is where they got it wrong. Champion is certainly the tankiest tank to ever tank. And Reaver is more damage, but I didn't think he was really comparable to a Rogue, and Templar has fairly mediocre buffing and tank abilities leaving it kind of bad. Hell, one of her best numerical abilities only happens if she dies, which is just bad for tanks and control characters.

There's a gap between idea and execution, yes. Templars are really watered down in DA:I. That said, it does kind of line up with the specializations' in-universe source. They use external power sources while Champions just train hard.

In any case, reworking the class system completely could theoretically work. I know I'd find just stealing the combat system from Dark Souls, or For Honor more engaging, or hell, I'm curious what could be done with a combat system like the Arkham games have if you add abilities to differentiate the various play styles of nimble, tough, or ranged characters.

But that's not going to happen so I'll stick with just trying to fix what they already have.

I was thinking more along the lines of returning to a more tactical combat, and making it more interesting - one of the series' strengths is the companions, so it'd be nice if they didn't just hang around while you do all the work. But you're right that it's not a realistic expectation anyway.

I wouldn't really say Tempest tanking is that haphazard or accidental. Frost Flask can upgraded to taunt and that was in the game from the very start. It seems like it was put there to make people try out tanking as a rogue and if built right rogues can do it.

That's fair. I forgot about the Frost Flask's taunting upgrade. I'd try it out, but I'll be playing a warrior next and I really don't trust Sera's AI to handle that.

Honestly I think mage versatility has been toned down a lot since the first game. They pretty much only excel in crowd control now, while their damage is the worst of the three classes. They also can't really tank because while KEs can soak damage they cant really do anything to draw an enemies attention towards them.

They also serve as a source of barriers. I think support+crowd control is a good niche for mages. Or native niche, if we let classes branch out.

[Inarius]

They also serve as a source of barriers. I think support+crowd control is a good niche for mages. Or native niche, if we let classes branch out.

Yeah, that slipped my mind while I was trying to think of what they did well outside of crowd control. Honestly Id be for a bit more diversification of the non mage classes like expanding on warriors support abilities and giving rogues some crowd control.

On top of that it'd be nice if they split mages up into close quarters and ranged classes. That would probably help make things like the KE feel more like they were designed for melee than they currently do. The array upgrades were nice in making KEs feel like they were melee characters, but other than spirit blade there isn't really a need for them to be in melee range especially post nerf.

[VoxRationis]

I dunno about templars being lackluster... Cassandra became infinitely more useful to me when I learned Spell Purge and took it off of "enabled" in the AI tactics menu. Between her and Solas with Dispel, I can nix half (or more) of a wave of Rift-spawned demons before the fight even starts. Templar abilities are useful, but specialized, which is what you expect, given the point of templar in-universe. And you fight plenty of demons, so it's not like you don't get a chance to use the specialized abilities.
By contrast, I think Reavers are less useful now that actually healing is harder to come by. In Origins, a tank's health was going to dip low between healing spells anyway (since, you know, there were cooldowns and you generally didn't have a party of 3 healers and one tank), so getting damage boosts and whatnot in those points was fine and dandy. But now good play involves not taking health damage at all. I'm not sure I want to use class abilities that deal hit point damage when I only get 8 heals per rest, split among the party. Maybe if I do a melee character next time and have a lot of multiple-warrior party setups.

I found and fought the dragon in the Hinterlands today. I'm not sure if it's a leveled opponent, but when I came up against it (at party level ~12), it had c. 100k hit points, and I learned only after committing to the fight that it had fire resistance and most of my party was built around fire damage. I couldn't even switch in my cold-based staves, since you can't access inventory during combat. The resulting battle lasted half an hour or more, carefully managing the barriers on my party (fortunately I had 3 characters who could cast Barrier). I ended up burning Vivienne's Focus ability and using Revival and the non-magical variant several times, with my whole party being an inch from death by the end. Once it was down to Solas, who had to take cover, slap a barrier on himself, and hope it lasted long enough to manually revive at least one other party member.

Edit: @Inarius: Spirit Blade is plenty of incentive to mix it up in melee as a Knight-Enchanter. It's a substantial damage increase, particularly against certain kinds of foes, and taking down the barriers on a Despair Demon more quickly can make all the difference sometimes.

[Giggling Ghast]

All the high dragons have a set level. The Fereldan Frostback in the Hinterlands is always Level 12 (unless you're using a Trial to raise its level). I personally find it the second-toughest dragon fight next to the Vinsomer on the Storm Coast.

There are 10 dragons in DAI, not counting the Elder One's dragon.

[Keltest]

You can actually cheese the Frostback to death. Just sit in the cave leading into its valley with a mage or archer character where you can see it, but before it has engaged you. a mage's staff and spells, or an archer's abilities, have no hard limit to their range, so you can sit back and plink away at it free from reprisal. It wont even retreat further into the valley when it gets low on health because youre outside of the trigger range.

Barring that though, I have a preference for seriously out-leveling any dragon I fight.

[Giggling Ghast]

You can actually cheese the Frostback to death. Just sit in the cave leading into its valley with a mage or archer character where you can see it, but before it has engaged you. a mage's staff and spells, or an archer's abilities, have no hard limit to their range, so you can sit back and plink away at it free from reprisal. It wont even retreat further into the valley when it gets low on health because youre outside of the trigger range.

Barring that though, I have a preference for seriously out-leveling any dragon I fight.

Well, you'll never get into Valhalla that way.

[Beleriphon]

You can actually cheese the Frostback to death. Just sit in the cave leading into its valley with a mage or archer character where you can see it, but before it has engaged you. a mage's staff and spells, or an archer's abilities, have no hard limit to their range, so you can sit back and plink away at it free from reprisal. It wont even retreat further into the valley when it gets low on health because youre outside of the trigger range.

Barring that though, I have a preference for seriously out-leveling any dragon I fight.

No kidding, going through the game first time I find one to fight I'm all "Oh, dragons cool, lets get it!" Five reloads later I'm all "Lets get it later when I'm seriously over leveled and over geared!"

[Inarius]

You can actually cheese the Frostback to death. Just sit in the cave leading into its valley with a mage or archer character where you can see it, but before it has engaged you. a mage's staff and spells, or an archer's abilities, have no hard limit to their range, so you can sit back and plink away at it free from reprisal. It wont even retreat further into the valley when it gets low on health because youre outside of the trigger range.

Barring that though, I have a preference for seriously out-leveling any dragon I fight.

The Hinterlands dragon is the only dragon you cant outlevel. The area itself always lowers your characters levels to level 11. It's odd that its the only dragon fight area that does that, but at least it keeps the hinterlands dragon somewhat challenging if you don't want to cheese it.

[Keltest]

The Hinterlands dragon is the only dragon you cant outlevel. The area itself always lowers your characters levels to level 11. It's odd that its the only dragon fight area that does that, but at least it keeps the hinterlands dragon somewhat challenging if you don't want to cheese it.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case, because I have definitely out leveled that dragon, and theres also an achievement earned for fighting it with a Trial on to force it to level 16.

I think it just stops scaling monsters past level 11, save for the dragon, which is not scaled without a Trial.