Classes in Dragon Age 4

1. When I was talking traditionally I was just talking in the context of Dragon Age.

2. As far as the flasher moves I can kind of agree with you but on the other hand I don't really blame them for making some visually distinctive move sets...of course I have also complained about things like stealth before so we all have our limits...but then this problem has always been with the series and I don't see a rogue being able to 'magically' summon a body double as they dissapear as any less ridiclious (and maybe even a good bit more ridiclious) honestly then cracking the Earth in Inquisition. And you have had that ability in 3 of the four games (Awakening, 2, and Inquisition.)

Edit: You know upon further reflection maybe with all the magic crap that all three of the classes can already do maybe it does actually make sense to just go 'screw it' and do go full classless.

I would certainly like to see them go back to 'more realism' ultimatley myself. Granted maybe not get rid of all the flash but it would be curious to see how they address this for four.

Mind you my answer to this tends to be 'if you don't like them, don't use them'. Yes, those abilities are there but the ones I considered most egregious...at least for the Rogue...I didn't equip or utlize, with the exception of stealth since that is so important for the rogue characters in that game. But leaping shot, the body double (well that one has been hit and miss) and magical teleportation are things I never have my Inquisitor utilize. Also while my first few play throughs I utilized Hidden Blades I stopped doing it because again my brain couldn't reconcile her being in two places at once.

the only game in the DA series where I can take the ridiculousness of melee rogues serious is in DA2, because you can just wave that away as Varric making things dramatic and flashy for Cassandra

I tolerate that one.

Of course. Bright, inoffensive colors and themes sprinkled with the occasional flashing lights. That's entertainment. 

Can I ask why some people put words like "realistic" and "authentic" in air-quotes?

It always confused me. I mean, we're all well aware that no depiction of anything truly matches up with the reality, but one thing can still objectively be closer to that reality than another. A hammer depicted as made of steel with a wooden handle is more realistic and authentic than a giant pink fluffy one. And most people who aren't children will have an easier time taking drama involving the realistic one seriously.

Calling it that isn't a pretention, so acting like you're calling that pretention out seems a bit dishonest, assuming that's what people are trying to do.


I'm with you. Usually steer a big circle around archery in games where those sorts of abilities are the linchpin of its effectiveness.

The whole idea is to play out a powerful story where the heroes use their pre-existing and developing skills and knowledge and training and personal gifts and tools to battle whatever opposes them in cunning and useful ways... and then one of the skills they're given is essentially "Just pretend you have a small company of artillery stationed behind the nearest hill all shooting with pin-point accuracy wherever you want them to!"

What the hell is the point of my dude or dudette defeating the forces of evil if the actual heroes are some invisible squad of NPC archers nobody ever talks about?

Every adjective is a completely arbitrary distinction, in that sense. Do you just categorically put adjectives in air-quotes for fear of people erroneously assuming that you're talking about the exact same thing they're thinking of?

Seems less trouble to just accept that there's a margin of error when speaking a language with singular words covering varied concepts, and ask if you can't figure out what someone means. As opposed to just assuming that they don't know it themselves, or that nobody else can understand just because you're personally having trouble.

You say that people apply these specific words "broadly to anything they approve of". Do you have any kind of example? I don't think I've ever seen that, and am not sure how you would distinguish it from someone who simply generally enjoys dark, mature or realistic content compared to the mainstream, which many undeniably do.

In my experience, they also rarely just say "make it more realistic" unless the wider context already indicates what sort of spectrum is being referred to. And even if it doesn't, it's a rare person who doesn't want to go into details and explain what they mean if anyone is in doubt.

1) That's simply not an assumption. The game intimately(rather than just implicitly) portrays systematic oppression and the rape of lower classes. It has people being sold into slavery just because they're unpopular and their monarch has an agenda to finance. As a city elf, it features your best friend getting gang-raped with no judicial recourse just for defending the virtues of young women on the day of their wedding.

Most fantasy stories either completely brush over or barely touch on those kinds of subjects, which we're reasonably certain is historically unrealistic in medieval-esque settings. And they're obviously not for children. Ergo, Dragon Age: Origins is a dark and mature and realistic fantasy story compared to most fantasy stories, justifying the use of those words. No projection or pretension about it.

2) Uhm. Something being serious and/or realistic is clearly a desirable quality for those of us who enjoy serious and realistic content. Saying that is not the same as claiming that everybody should feel that way. No offense, but if you begrudge and distrust people just for wanting their dark and gritty games, which they enjoy, to stay dark and gritty then how exactly are they the ones being unreasonably intolerant of your tastes and not the other way around?

And don't say that you don't begrudge us. You just essentially called us liars for "pretending" that having a clear preference for realism and mature storytelling is a valid way to feel.

Jesus Christ, how about we keep the discussion to fucking CLASSES AND COMBAT instead of spiralling into complete fucking nonsense about how "adult media" with a FEW meagre, superficial decorative trappings of "medieval Europe" needs to have RAPE to be taken seriously.

I didn't mention it because it wasn't fucking relevant but the other, and in fact, the main reason I don't agree with this realism bullshit is precisely *because* smug assholes use it as code for ladling rape and bigotry into everything.

An ACTUALLY "adult and mature" person wouldn't sook about a fucking video game not having rape in it, and they wouldn't say that it should be in there for "realism", as if people NOT getting raped is so fucking unbelievable.

Mhm. At times like this I like to remember the moments when you've been outraged over someone supposedly putting words in your mouth, making baseless accusations about your motives and trying to make discussions deliberately personal for want of having any actual arguments, up to and including name-calling. I've always admired how you keep yourself to a higher standard, never losing your cool or falling into any of those traps even when faced with ideas and facets of life you didn't particularly enjoy thinking about. 

Your counterpoint, however, would hold more weight if anyone had actually said that rape or bigotry were the defining features of "adult media" as you call it, rather than just two out of countless possible real issues through which a fictional society can be fleshed out. Or, indeed, if there ever had been a real human settlement that was free of those sorts of things.

As it is, you personally disliking stories where flaws in human nature haven't miraculously been fixed off-screen doesn't strike me as a sensible reason to pretend that the use of 'realistic' or any of those other dreaded adjectives of yours are inherently dishonest.

Too bad, that. But thank you for answering my question. Sorry if we did get a little off-topic, but my curiosity and desire to argue the point sometimes gets the better of me.


Can't speak to that. So far as I can see, we've used DA:O as a standard for class skill overlap and for 'muggle' classes not having overtly supernatural talents. I don't see that anybody has gone and called it the gold standard for realistic medieval combat in itself, at least in this discussion, so you must be referring to other people.

I'd even say that the game's treatment of the idea of full-sized two-weapon fighting isn't as silly as you're presenting it as. Mechanically, getting the talent that allows it is a massive waste and overinvestment into dual wielding and dexterity for little, if any, gain except style compared to using a dagger in the off-hand, given that the dexterity bonus you accrue to satisfy the requirements suddenly won't benefit either weapon at all.

If some dumbass came to me and said they'd practiced using two longswords together so long that it actually kind of worked, and it turned out to be true, I'd think pretty much the same thing about them.

And, uhm, the other end of the scale is backflips and stopping time, setting yourself on fire, and cracking the Earth's crust with a sword to summon up lava. I'm totally with you that two longswords is dumb, but it's not actually unrealistic at all, certainly not enough to give up on any kind of realism whatsoever in protest.

Aw man my whole post got erased when i got a 404...

Summary: Bard class variant

Everyone can be a bard so there are three variants and they all use the same weapons differently.

Weapons list: tambourine, lute, harp, trumpet

Warriors use a trumpet as a blunt force weapon, rogues use it as a blow dart, mages "shout" spells with it. Later on you can modify the trumpet: attach an axe head to it, or add larger magazine to fire bolts, or add a crystal to enhance spells.

Bard spells have the same name but different functions based on your profile, ex:

Round of Applause
-warrior's way: you start singing and nearby enemies will be taunted by your ballads
-rogue's way: you start singing and nearby enemies will start dancing uncontrollably reducing yheir speed and accuracy
-mages's way: start singing and nearby enemies cheer you on and boost your dmg and regeneration

Concert
Way of warror: slam your foot down to create a sundered mosh pit around you, nearby enemies are dazed and take more dmg
Way of rogue: hold your finger to your lips and shush nearby enemies, they can't use special abilities if they remain near you
Way of mage: snap your fingers and nearby part members will join your choir, lowering cooldowns and stealing enemies energy

I think the devs should also write lyrics for the songs.

I’m amazed so many people even remember what attack animations look like. I only see them for about the first half dozen fights, and then I start “seeing” them the way I “see” people’s faces in dreams (where nobody actually has a face, but I just know who’s who).

In that sense, I find flashy animations less intrusive than subdued ones, because they get converted into their symbolic representations even quicker. Milder animations take longer to disappear, because my brain needs more time to map them into different bins.

I suspect this “brain upload” speed affects enjoyment in some hard-to-describe way — maybe game designers have weighed realistic animations vs. reading time and found that faster reading makes players feel more flow, or something like that.

Yeah, that’s fair. I accidentally mixed jello with my vodka the other day, and was dismayed to discover I’d created a kid’s drink.