Dragon Age: Origins?

[Rynjin]

It's been a while, but can't you just... unlock the specialization and reload? According to the wiki, apparently you can. Like I said, bizarre.

Sure, you can, but it still means you've experienced both paths of the content, which is what they wanted.

[Aeson]

It's to encourage further playthroughs. There are multiple endings, and a few Specializations are mutually exclusive with the "correct" quest result (like Reaver).

I don't see how account-linked specialization unlocks encourage further playthroughs. If you were curious enough about how various actions affect the rest of the game and the epilogue to play through the game again while making intentionally-different decisions, then you were almost certainly curious enough to play through the game again and make intentionally-different decisions regardless of the direct mechanical incentives attached to each choice; if you weren't, then chances are you weren't going to go back through the game making intentionally-different choices regardless of any mechanical incentives attached to the various choices you could make.

If it's supposed to be an "ooh, next time I can do this at level X," I don't see how that's supposed to work. Shapeshifter, Blood Mage, and Arcane Warrior are probably the only specializations where availability at level 7 would make much of any difference to how the game plays, because they're the only ones with really impactful entry-level abilities, but you could probably get Shapeshifer the first time you go to the party camp if you put a bit of effort into buttering up Morrigan and either Blood Mage or Arcane Warrior not too long afterwards; the other specializations either don't make much of a difference to how you'd play a character or level-lock the talents that probably constitute the main reason for taking the specialization to something high enough that you'd probably be able to unlock the specialization by the time you could use them with only a little bit of planning.

Sure, you can, but it still means you've experienced both paths of the content, which is what they wanted.

Champion, Reaver, and Blood Mage are the only three specializations where I'd say that the decision to unlock them has any meaningful 'alternate-path' content, and anyways you can skip what story content there is for most of the specializations if you choose to do so:
- Ranger and Spirit Healer can, to my knowledge, only be unlocked by purchasing manuals from vendors in Origins. There's no story content there, only opportunity cost.
- Assassin, Bard, Berserker, Shapeshifter, and Templar can all be unlocked by interacting with the party members having those specializations, but unlocking or not unlocking them that way has no meaningful impact on the story and they can also be unlocked by the content-free means of purchasing manuals from vendors in Origins.
- Blood Mage and Reaver can be unlocked by story-relevant decisions in Origins or by the content-free means of purchasing manuals from vendors in Awakening.
- Arcane Warrior and Duelist to my knowledge can only be unlocked in Origins by story means, but how you choose to resolve the part of the story associated with the specialization unlock has no relevant impact on the rest of the game that I can recall.
- Champion can be unlocked by accepting a reward from Arl Eamon, or by interacting with Logain if you choose to recruit him at the end of the game. The former unlock path and its alternative do not have any relevant impact on the rest of the story that I can recall.

[LibraryOgre]

- Champion can be unlocked by accepting a reward from Arl Eamon, or by interacting with Logain if you choose to recruit him at the end of the game. The former unlock path and its alternative do not have any relevant impact on the rest of the story that I can recall.

I'm annoyed at how difficult Champion is to unlock. And, TBH, if I could, I'd love to stick Templar on a Rogue... even that first level, where hits drop their mana, is fantastic, and why Alistair is usually along.

And I figured out a way around my points paucity... no weapon talents. All of my talents are going into basic Rogue talents (and specialization, when they open up). It means I don't have to spend skills on Weapon Training, am saving talents between levels (because I hit level 6 and all my Rogue Talents are full), and while I'm a bit less effective in combat, my sword-and-board, medium armor rogue has more survivability, and can do most of the things I want.

[Morty]

I'm annoyed at how difficult Champion is to unlock. And, TBH, if I could, I'd love to stick Templar on a Rogue... even that first level, where hits drop their mana, is fantastic, and why Alistair is usually along.

A good example of the distinction between warriors and rogues being very arbitrary. The in-game justification is that it requires "discipline", which... rogues can never have, apparently.

[Keltest]

A good example of the distinction between warriors and rogues being very arbitrary. The in-game justification is that it requires "discipline", which... rogues can never have, apparently.

I thought the in-game justification was that Templars were Warriors with extra stuff, and if you didn't have a warrior's foundational training, the extra stuff wouldn't be of any use to you? Like with most of the other classes.

[LaZodiac]

The truth of the matter is that anyone who's grown up as a rogue is too smart to buy into the "get addicted to the magic snorting dust" schema that is becoming a Templar.

[Morty]

I thought the in-game justification was that Templars were Warriors with extra stuff, and if you didn't have a warrior's foundational training, the extra stuff wouldn't be of any use to you? Like with most of the other classes.

This doesn't really add up, though. Templars train to deny and resist magic, which is useful regardless of what you use to shoot/stab the mage/demon afterwards. Some specializations make sense as exclusive to warriors or rogues, others less so - like Templar.

The truth of the matter is that anyone who's grown up as a rogue is too smart to buy into the "get addicted to the magic snorting dust" schema that is becoming a Templar.

The stereotype of warriors as dumb is one of the many things we can be thankful to the warrior/rogue distinction for.

[LaZodiac]

This doesn't really add up, though. Templars train to deny and resist magic, which is useful regardless of what you use to shoot/stab the mage/demon afterwards. Some specializations make sense as exclusive to warriors or rogues, others less so - like Templar.



The stereotype of warriors as dumb is one of the many things we can be thankful to the warrior/rogue distinction for.

For what it's worth I'm not saying that warriors are dumb, but that rogue's see something like the Templar order and go "oh that's a drug cult I've seen a couple of those in the Dusts and I'm going to stay far far away from that."

As for how rogues deal with anti magic... well, you stab them in the throat. That tends to stop them pretty handily.

[Keltest]

For what its worth, the templar order itself does seem to utilize some flavor of rogues in DA2 and Inquisition. Although how they claim to be stealthy in full plate is beyond me.

I would also suggest that templars are mostly warriors because they fill the knightly role of shock troops, especially against mages. They want to be in the middle of the front lines to best counter the mages, who would otherwise be wreaking merry havoc among the rank and file. If you have those abilities on a rogue, you aren't really benefitting as much. Assassinating the mage already shuts off the magic, you don't need a templar's abilities for that.

[LibraryOgre]

For what it's worth I'm not saying that warriors are dumb, but that rogue's see something like the Templar order and go "oh that's a drug cult I've seen a couple of those in the Dusts and I'm going to stay far far away from that."

As for how rogues deal with anti magic... well, you stab them in the throat. That tends to stop them pretty handily.

"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will severely cramp his style." - Vlad Taltos

[Morty]

For what it's worth I'm not saying that warriors are dumb, but that rogue's see something like the Templar order and go "oh that's a drug cult I've seen a couple of those in the Dusts and I'm going to stay far far away from that."

And I'm once again lost as to why the same conclusion can't be reached by a warrior, or a turnip farmer for that matter.

For what its worth, the templar order itself does seem to utilize some flavor of rogues in DA2 and Inquisition. Although how they claim to be stealthy in full plate is beyond me.

Yeah, which just makes it even weirder why we can't do it. And I think their archers and skirmishers wear lighter armor in Inquisition? I forget.

I would also suggest that templars are mostly warriors because they fill the knightly role of shock troops, especially against mages. They want to be in the middle of the front lines to best counter the mages, who would otherwise be wreaking merry havoc among the rank and file. If you have those abilities on a rogue, you aren't really benefitting as much. Assassinating the mage already shuts off the magic, you don't need a templar's abilities for that.

That's nice, but still a post-fact justification. Being able to dispel magic, prevent a mage/spirit from casting entirely and imbue their weapons with anti-magic benefits anyone who tries to fight magical opponents with mundane weapons. That it might benefit a heavily-armored knight a bit more doesn't cut it. You won't always be able to get the drop on a mage and take them out before they can see you.

This is of course less about templars specifically and more about my general annoyance with the warrior/rogue/mage setup that crops up way too often.

[Keltest]

I believe that Sir goes into brief detail about how a templar is basically required to face tank magic to properly perform their duties and use their abilitires. You also hear Iron Bull make a side comment about how templar training also includes things like angling your shield slightly to help deflect acid or fire from spraying into your face on a block. There is, evidently, significantly more going into templar training than just the lyrium abilities, which is presumably why you need the Warrior training first. What does a rogue know about using a shield, after all?

[Morty]

I believe that Sir goes into brief detail about how a templar is basically required to face tank magic to properly perform their duties and use their abilitires. You also hear Iron Bull make a side comment about how templar training also includes things like angling your shield slightly to help deflect acid or fire from spraying into your face on a block. There is, evidently, significantly more going into templar training than just the lyrium abilities, which is presumably why you need the Warrior training first. What does a rogue know about using a shield, after all?

Ser does go into detail about Templar abilities, but there's nothing there about "face-tanking". He talks about how you need to take filtered lyrium, how it'll change you and how to endure its call. The Iron Bull mentions that Cullen is teaching that method to the Inquisition's recruits, who aren't Templars. It's just something you should do when facing mages. He's familiar with it, and Qunari have no Templars. Templar abilities involve taking lyrium (I'm not sure if they drink it or inject it), enduring its call and using it to reinforce realities and prevent mages or spirits from drawing on the Fade. I don't see why someone determined and disciplined enough shouldn't do it just because they happen to fight with daggers or a bow.

[Keltest]

Ser does go into detail about Templar abilities, but there's nothing there about "face-tanking". He talks about how you need to take filtered lyrium, how it'll change you and how to endure its call. The Iron Bull mentions that Cullen is teaching that method to the Inquisition's recruits, who aren't Templars. It's just something you should do when facing mages. He's familiar with it, and Qunari have no Templars.

Ok, but that doesn't mean its not necessary knowledge to properly use your training and abilities. And while its been a bit, im almost positive that some part of the Way of the Templar specifically mentioned enduring the magic and denying it its hold to counter it.

And i'll also bring up again, what good is a rogue who can resist magic when the mage is roasting your troops with a fireball? Rogues don't want to be in the line of fire to begin with, their abilities would be largely wasted.

[LibraryOgre]

I believe that Sir goes into brief detail about how a templar is basically required to face tank magic to properly perform their duties and use their abilitires. You also hear Iron Bull make a side comment about how templar training also includes things like angling your shield slightly to help deflect acid or fire from spraying into your face on a block. There is, evidently, significantly more going into templar training than just the lyrium abilities, which is presumably why you need the Warrior training first. What does a rogue know about using a shield, after all?

I know my dwarven noble rogue was offered one in the very first dialog she had with her loyal second, Gorim*. And she carries one day to day.

And Sten, and Oghren, both of whom are two-handed weapon specialists, have no trouble learning Templar abilities.

And why can't a fighter be a Duelist? Or a Bard? Or a Ranger?

It's thoughts like this that made me throw Star Wars Saga Edition classless... there wasn't a good reason for the difference between the classes, when almost everything fell on talents.


*A fun thing came up for me, though. Last game, I made a bee-line to Denerim to pick up Berserker and Duelist. Sereda, my lovely dwarven lady, of course asked Gorim to join her as my second. Between my leaving Orzamaar, and arriving in Denerim was pretty much just travel time, plus my downtime when Flemeth saved us from Ishal. But Gorim is not only married, but knows that his wife is pregnant and they will have a child soon.

[Morty]

Ok, but that doesn't mean its not necessary knowledge to properly use your training and abilities. And while its been a bit, im almost positive that some part of the Way of the Templar specifically mentioned enduring the magic and denying it its hold to counter it.

Which doesn't require being a warrior, which is not a particularly useful descriptor to begin with. It requires lyrium and strong will. And I would say Nathaniel is a lot strong-willed than Oghren, for instance.

And i'll also bring up again, what good is a rogue who can resist magic when the mage is roasting your troops with a fireball? Rogues don't want to be in the line of fire to begin with, their abilities would be largely wasted.

They can remove that mage's defensive spells before shanking them in the back, for one thing. Or prevent them from casting before shooting them. Or stop them from casting if they're noticed before they can shank/shoot them.

*A fun thing came up for me, though. Last game, I made a bee-line to Denerim to pick up Berserker and Duelist. Sereda, my lovely dwarven lady, of course asked Gorim to join her as my second. Between my leaving Orzamaar, and arriving in Denerim was pretty much just travel time, plus my downtime when Flemeth saved us from Ishal. But Gorim is not only married, but knows that his wife is pregnant and they will have a child soon.

The timeline of Origins is rife with mysteries. Seeing as if you're a dwarf commoner, your sister has given birth to a child by the time you come back.

[Keltest]

I think youre conflating a few different game's mechanics here with the story.

First off, warriors can use bows. We know there are templar archers, and in origins you can do perfectly well as a warrior archer, or a two hander templar. So complaining that templar cant use those weapons is silly. They can, they just separated bows out because reasons, the same way Blood Mage isn't a specialization in Inquisition.

Secondly, I think youre losing sight of what a templar is. Theyre knights, theyre shock troops, theyre warriors. They aren't like the Grey Wardens who take anything that works and exploit it, they have a specific style and duty that they use. A rogue might be able to train to use some of the lyrium powers, but they wouldn't be templars, they would just be drug addled rogues (something else, I will point out, which gets in the way of a rogue's ability to do their job.) Rogues use cunning. Templars use brute force. Rogues don't want to be anywhere near where the enemy is focusing, Templars want to actively force the enemy to focus on them. Templars specifically rely on honor, duty and brotherhood to maintain their sanity, while rogues generally scorn those things.

Also, as far as the timeline goes, I believe its officially confirmed somewhere that the better part of a year passes while you cross Ferelden with Duncan.

[Morty]

I think youre conflating a few different game's mechanics here with the story.

No, I am pointing out why the mechanics are arbitrary and don't mesh with the story. What you're listing are justifications, not reasons. The actual reason is that warriors and rogues are separate classes and they need separate specializations. And I don't like warriors and rogues as classes - Templars being warrior-only is just one specific example of why it doesn't work.

[Keltest]

No, I am pointing out why the mechanics are arbitrary and don't mesh with the story. What you're listing are justifications, not reasons. The actual reason is that warriors and rogues are separate classes and they need separate specializations. And I don't like warriors and rogues as classes - Templars being warrior-only is just one specific example of why it doesn't work.

Of course theyre arbitrary. Its a game. Somebody, somewhere, decided this is how they wanted it to play. Its not some kind of historical simulator or anything. Doing it the other way around just makes things needlessly difficult for your development team.

What youre really asking is "why aren't rogues warriors?" and the answer is "because they aren't". Its a silly question. If you want to have distinct roles, then they need to be distinct. Go figure.

[LaZodiac]

And I'm once again lost as to why the same conclusion can't be reached by a warrior, or a turnip farmer for that matter.

If a wizard sees you first they win. Rogue's excel at not being seen.

In all seriousness while there might be lore reasons as to why, you're not wrong that martial disciplines should probably have something usable by each "type". Like, a ranger version of warrior and a ranger version of rogue, and stuff. It seems fair given wizards basically get to do everything they damn well please.

[LibraryOgre]

Man, I was briefly hopeful that Righteous Strike would work with bows... how does it work with dual-weapon? Because that would be the mage-killer, right there... a Templar with dual-weapon and Momentum.

[Keltest]

Man, I was briefly hopeful that Righteous Strike would work with bows... how does it work with dual-weapon? Because that would be the mage-killer, right there... a Templar with dual-weapon and Momentum.

its per-hit, but the mana burn is based on damage dealt.

[Morty]

Of course theyre arbitrary. Its a game. Somebody, somewhere, decided this is how they wanted it to play. Its not some kind of historical simulator or anything. Doing it the other way around just makes things needlessly difficult for your development team.

What youre really asking is "why aren't rogues warriors?" and the answer is "because they aren't". Its a silly question. If you want to have distinct roles, then they need to be distinct. Go figure.

I don't remember asking anything. I do remember stating an opinion that "rogues" and "warriors" aren't useful categorizations and supporting it with examples.

If a wizard sees you first they win. Rogue's excel at not being seen.

Okay...

In all seriousness while there might be lore reasons as to why, you're not wrong that martial disciplines should probably have something usable by each "type".

There aren't any lore reasons as to why, that's the point.

Like, a ranger version of warrior and a ranger version of rogue, and stuff. It seems fair given wizards basically get to do everything they damn well please.

Or there could be no warriors and rogues. Either no classes at all, or more classes that mean something useful.

[LaZodiac]

The classes do mean something. Fighters are more about drawing aggro, taking damage, and being defensive (even more offense oriented ones) whereas Rogues are more for DPS and sneaky-times. That's an inherent difference. Sure, rogues can off tank, but they'll be worse at it than a fighter.

The specializations should play to those strengths. A Reaver Fighter would be different from a Reaver Rogue.

[Rynjin]

I'm quite surprised that in this whole long comment thread nobody actually brought up the reason why there are no "Rogue Templars".

Because raw lyrium is a highly controlled substance. There are two factions in the country (world?) that control all access to lyrium: the Chantry and the dwarves.

The dwarves do not trade with outsiders or even allow them into their cities. They also don't NEED Templars as they are all innately magic resistant, and have better things to do with it anyway (like make magic runes and ****).

The Chantry does not give lyrium to anyone unaffiliated with the Chantry, and it's hard to get your hands on even inside of it. When they choose someone to be a Templar, it's at the end of a very long training process, followed by another long training process, culminating in being trusted enough to have access to the raw lyrium required to fuel their abilities.

Other people can certainly get their hands on it as contraband, sure, but in quantities large enough to fuel the powers for long? Probably not. And taking it wrong results in crippling or death.

[Winthur]

I'm quite surprised that in this whole long comment thread nobody actually brought up the reason why there are no "Rogue Templars".

Unless we're going through a simple semantic issue between "Templar gone rogue" and "Rogue specialized into Templar", there's hardly any reason the Chantry couldn't have its own MI:6 that gathers guys skilled in deception, infiltration and assassination and mixes that with some choice Templar techniques.

The "long training process" necessary to become a Templar is apparently also circumventable by reading The Light And How To Swing It by the alternate universe Uther the Lightbringer or by simply chatting with Alistair. As it stands, if my cute elf rogue that Alistair is banging every night and flanking for every day acts like a light-armored warrior, strikes in melee and is athletically comparable, there's no reason she couldn't pick up on one of those fancy anti-mage abilities other than Alistair saying it's not kosher because he looked her up on her character sheet. But that's very selective, as his alternative universe flame has "Blood Mage" written in there and he never made a comment.

[Keltest]

Unless we're going through a simple semantic issue between "Templar gone rogue" and "Rogue specialized into Templar", there's hardly any reason the Chantry couldn't have its own MI:6 that gathers guys skilled in deception, infiltration and assassination and mixes that with some choice Templar techniques.

The "long training process" necessary to become a Templar is apparently also circumventable by reading The Light And How To Swing It by the alternate universe Uther the Lightbringer or by simply chatting with Alistair. As it stands, if my cute elf rogue that Alistair is banging every night and flanking for every day acts like a light-armored warrior, strikes in melee and is athletically comparable, there's no reason she couldn't pick up on one of those fancy anti-mage abilities other than Alistair saying it's not kosher because he looked her up on her character sheet. But that's very selective, as his alternative universe flame has "Blood Mage" written in there and he never made a comment.

It actually does. Theyre the Seekers of Truth (as the name suggests) and they don't use Lyrium for their templar powers, but rather an exceptionally elaborate ritual that involves becoming Tranquil and then bonding with a Spirit of Faith. The fact that they don't use lyrium is a deliberate choice, as they need clear minds and no distractions to do their jobs.

[Morty]

The classes do mean something. Fighters are more about drawing aggro, taking damage, and being defensive (even more offense oriented ones) whereas Rogues are more for DPS and sneaky-times. That's an inherent difference. Sure, rogues can off tank, but they'll be worse at it than a fighter.

The specializations should play to those strengths. A Reaver Fighter would be different from a Reaver Rogue.

...yes, I am aware of the practical differences between those two classes. That is not what I'm arguing about.

It actually does. Theyre the Seekers of Truth (as the name suggests) and they don't use Lyrium for their templar powers, but rather an exceptionally elaborate ritual that involves becoming Tranquil and then bonding with a Spirit of Faith. The fact that they don't use lyrium is a deliberate choice, as they need clear minds and no distractions to do their jobs.

And the one Seeker of Truth we have in our party is, you guessed it... a warrior. It's almost as if the differences between Seekers and Templars have nothing to do with the mechanical Warrior and Rogue classes.

[Keltest]

...yes, I am aware of the practical differences between those two classes. That is not what I'm arguing about.



And the one Seeker of Truth we have in our party is, you guessed it... a warrior. It's almost as if the differences between Seekers and Templars have nothing to do with the mechanical Warrior and Rogue classes.

She also has the templar specialization in spite of not being a templar, and doesn't have access to the actual powers she explicitly says she has, which should theoretically be usable against both templars and mages. Its pretty clearly a case of gameplay and story segregation there.

[Morty]

She also has the templar specialization in spite of not being a templar, and doesn't have access to the actual powers she explicitly says she has, which should theoretically be usable against both templars and mages. Its pretty clearly a case of gameplay and story segregation there.

Precisely, and in the same vein it's game mechanics, rather than any in-universe considerations, that are the only reason rogues can't be Templars. And some people wish it were otherwise.