This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Game Discussion > Fourth Class
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2655 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

As you know, there are three playable classes in DA: Warrior, Mage, and Rogue. Just throwing it out there, but what if there was a fourth class you could play as. Not saying there should be, just writing this for fun and to see if anyone else has any ideas. Here's mine.

Brawler: Specializes in hand-to-hand combat and is knowledgeable in unarmed techniques. Weapons of choice are special gloves and boots that can range from simple leather gloves and boots to enchanted gear that lights your fist on fire or releases a blast of lightning or shockwaves when you punch.

This is my idea of DA martial artist (I know there might be a few holes in this idea). What do you think?-- (talk) 06:00, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

A dragon knight: A special mage who can shapeshift into a dragon at will, plus the dragon knight can fight like a warrior when not transformed but cannot use any of the spells that a normal mage has. (talk) 06:09, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Well the problem with that is brawling could fall under both warriors and rouges, it's simply not unique enough to be it's own class. Not only that, but hand-to-hand combat is nowhere near as effective as the other forms of combat. The reason there is rarely a "fourth" classes is because that the three base classes already covers just about everything. If it's not, then it is usually not extensive enough to be it's own class and is usually covered under the specialization catagory. At most, you could possibly expect "hybrid" classes but even those seem highly unlikely. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 06:14, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Again, a "dragon knight" class is simply not unique enough to constitute its own class. It's still a form of magic and would at most be a specialization, similar to the arcane warriors. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 06:17, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

The only way I could imagine a fourth class is by splitting the CQC and Archery Rogue classes, personally. That said, I like the trio set-up. RomeoReject (talk) 06:26, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

I actually quite like the fighter idea. While yes it could be broken down to be a rogue or warrior build. The fact is that unarmed combat is never really addressed in Dragon Age. In DA2 you CAN'T be unarmed, you always have the basic weapon. And in Origins you could punch the enemy but that was it, and it was obviously very weak. I think what's being suggested here is a class wherein your punches and kicks are treated as real attacks. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to kill someone by just physically beating them, it's completely possible in real life. You could have certain gloves that had iron knuckles attached and provide a damage bonus, maybe some bleeding damage. I think it's completely feasible. Yes it could be treated as a specialization, or just giving warriors the ability to have certain unarmed moves. But if I were going to create a 4th class I would say fighter would be the best step because there's a lot of potential and it fills a niche that none of the other classes are even trying to address. I know it's not my idea, but a lot of people are kind of picking on it and I think it should have some defense. Tyrannus3 (talk) 07:49, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

The Passifist class. He does nothing but run from fights :)--Agentsmit58 (talk) 10:27, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the monk from Diablo 3 inspired the OP here? :P I confess that I do not really like your idea specifically, but I am definitely keen for a fourth unique class. Ccg08 (talk) 10:59, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

I think the three-class system has persisted so long in gaming due to the elegance of its simplicity. Any additional class would really only be a specialization or a hybrid of those three.

Although DA doesn't explicitly support an unarmed combat style, it would be fairly simple to implement. I haven't tested it, but you may be able to use Rogue talents in DA:O without weapons. The entire Heartseeker tree even feels like Monk-style martial arts. Certain Warrior and Rogue talent trees in DA2 could also, potentially, be compatible with unarmed combat.

But I don't really see that warranting a separate class, nor does it particularly make sense within the setting. And I'm going to completely ignore the whole "Silent Sisters fight barehanded" thing. What kind of idiot dwarf goes up against darkspawn without a weapon?

The best I can think of is to make Archer its own class, with separate talent trees for bow-and-arrow, crossbow, and (defense-focused) close-combat. Son Goharotto (talk) 13:50, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Like Son Goharotto said, the Warrior/Rogue/Mage classes are the basic RPG classes. Every other class you see in other games are hybrids of two or all three of those classes. For example, the Paladin is usually a hybrid of the warrior and mage classes, while a Cleric is also a hybrid of Warrior and Mage, and the Monk is a Warrior/Rogue. As for classes like the Fighter or Brawler, they're simply other names for Warriors. It comes down to what each class does, the Warrior is meant to weather the damage and to shield the other weaker members of the party while the Rogue backstabs the enemy and the Mage heals. Which is what the Fighter, the Thief and the Wizard all do respectively. Tabletop RPGs and games often went for dozens of classes because it was of a way of going "Hey, look at us, you can be a special, special snowflake if you use our game!" So you have a dozen or so classes in one game, all of which don't really excel in one area because they tried to do a little it of everything. Which is why Bioware went to the basic three because then you have clearly defined roles and styles, with the specialities making the classes unique. Asking to make a fourth class isn't really doing anything new, its just taking elements from the Basic Three. --Madasamadthing (talk) 16:55, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

How does a Beast Tamer class sound? Also, can hand-to-hand combat and Archery be counted as separate classes or are they only apart of the warrior and rogue class?-- (talk) 20:18, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you could fit in another class. All of them are basically the three required class for any group game under a different name. Warrior is Tank and takes enemy attention off of other players (though it can be DPS as well.) Rogue is pure DPS. Mage is Healer/Support and/or DPS. I can't think of anything other purpose for a class that wouldn't be just a different form of one of those. (talk) 03:44, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

The problem with a Dragon Knight is that Flemeth already is. She is a mage who can turn into a Dragon at will. I could though see a 4th class coming out of the Qunari, like say a Juggernaut! since the Qunari are already in the early stages of developing gun based technology (they have cannons on their ships) I could see them producing a Gun based class at some point. The Juggernaut could wield a large Handcannon. --JordanHawker (talk) 10:37, May 29, 2013 (UTC) JordanHawker

A hand-to-hand fighter is not really good realistically. They are good for brawling in taverns, but bad against someone with a weapon, not to mention a mage. I think the classes are sufficient enough. You could expand the specialization roster though.--Heinous (talk) 11:31, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a fourth class is possible. But I could see this as a new talent tree. Maybe not hand-to-hand but as passive talents. Such as Rested: remain out of combat for a certain amount of time and get a small mana/stamina bonus at the start of combat.--KCMueller (talk) 13:55, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Generally, I concur with many people here regarding the 3 main player types, and also with those who mention that perhaps having more variation within that structure will spice things up, so to speak. D&D, for example, had multiple classes for a player or race, but despite their different names and numerous talents, they still adhered to that triplet, but merely made a lot more possible. EzzyD (talk) 16:36, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Quick point of interest- "Dragon Knight" is already taken in the Divinity series :p ----Isolationistmagi 20:23, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

You spelled "Dragonlance" wrong :) Besides, Warrior, Mage and Rogue aren't exactly original either. -Algol- (talk) 21:24, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
So did the person who originally put it up, and that was exactly the point Even the mispelling is already taken. ----Isolationistmagi 21:59, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

How about an engineer of some sort for a fourth class? This could have 3 skill trees: melee (maybe some sort of element-powered weapon, all by means of science?) , range (qunari firearms or/and grenades) and support (smoke bombs and so on) and would be certainly interesting. This class could also be a way to introduce more info about Qunari technology. Yammamoto69 (talk) 17:38, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

I'd call such class "Alchemist" and I'd really like something like that. (talk) 22:02, May 31, 2013 (UTC)Just call me Dalish fan

I'd like alchemist as the 4th class. (talk) 08:31, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

And I do second it. (talk) 22:15, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.