Forum:Multiple weapons

Forums: Index > Game DiscussionMultiple weapons

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4380 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

Heya! I created blog on this topic but it seems non-administrator blogs aren't as popular here as on ME wiki. So i'll repeat this here cause I think it's a Hell of idea and should be implemented.

I was thinking about character wearing several weapons at the same time. Like in Mass Effect. Something like Aragorn in LOTR.

Heres an example. ( I'll use warrior as he should be the master of all weapons)

Warrior carrying 2h Greatsword across his right shoulder and 1h longsword/axe/dagger/mace on his left shoulder. Than a shield hanging on his back on top of greatsword and longsword, so that warrior can pull it up whenever he desires. And another longsword/axe/dagger/mace on his left hip.

So when he fights he can pull out Greatsword with his right arm, he can go sword&shield with left arm reaching for shield and right arm going for the weapon on hip. He can go dual wield with left arm reaching for weapon on his left shoulder and right arm going for weapon on hip. Same thing would go for rogues and mages, with the weapons their class allows them to use.

So far I've seen this only in Witcher and it really looks cool AND real and practical. What do you think?--Markurion (talk) 14:52, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad Idea, heck maybe mages can even carry a backup dagger (well all characters seem to anyway, aka the murder knife lol), Yeah I'm cool with this, as long as they don't restrict weapons so much like DA2, warriors should be able to use what ever the heck they want except for staves. MrRexfire (talk) 14:56, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

The restriction on weapons in DA2 didn't bug me a whole lot, because I typically streamlined everyone in DA:O to fight with one weapon anyway. But if combat in DA3 continues with this pseudo-action trend, I would definitely like to see some kind of hotkeyed quick-swapping ability. Son Goharotto (talk) 15:52, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

You thinking about Amalur or something similar? And you can be sure that this action trend will continue. It is the direction to which most game companies strive to.--Markurion (talk) 16:07, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. No, sorry. The medieval stuff would be way more difficult to switch than Shep's high-tech miniature weaponry. There was actually a reason why warriors usually had just sword+shield or sword+dagger. I was quite happy with the secondary weapon option. --Ygrain (talk) 17:09, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Serbian Medieval Knight (they were heaviest armored units in whole Europe) wore Shields, longsword, shortsword and spear type weapon on occasion. English Knights (also very well and heavy armored) wore shield,longsword and a shortsword.

And btw, I didn't suggest that players would HAVE to wear the weapons. You don't have to wear sniper in ME3 if you don't want to.--Markurion (talk) 18:08, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

How can can you not wear a sniper rifle in ME3? O_o Not even a little sniper rifle? A scoped heavy pistol? Damn Vanguards XD But on the topic, good idea, but I doubt they implement something like that in DA3 because of increasing separation in character classes. Rogues could wield only daggers or bows in DA2 and warriors couldn't wield bows at all. Oh, and rember the need to "retain the iconic look of the characters", whatever that means.-Algol- (talk) 19:26, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Damn Vanguards XD - How dare you! ;P On topic, I want my rouge to be able to use daggers, bows and throw knives. I mean they already throw grenades around, so why not pointy stuff too?--SunyiNyufi (talk) 20:36, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Heheh, I'm forever guy who would rather throw enemies around than blast their heads from afar. Though revolver headshot is somewhat attractive. :D On the topic.

Fans on BSN, both DA2 and DAO, are negative about class restrictions. As Laidlaw himself showed up on forum and talked with us, I believe restrictions will be gone in DA3, or at least will be changed. So heres something to hope for. But, Bows and arrows warrior isn't much attractive to me anyway. They require agility and cunning, not brute strenght warriors usually possess. Some things SHOULD be class restricted.--Markurion (talk) 20:50, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

That's something i can be hopeful about. However, remember how some of the Sword & Shield talents required a good many points in DEX? I agree that a warrior using a bow as a primary weapon doesn't seem quite right, but I enjoyed my S&S warrior carrying a longbow as his secondary weapon. --CommanderCousland (talk) 05:12, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

@SunyiNyufi "That was a joke":D You know I'm just jealous of Vanguards being so cool. Actually Infiltrators are as cool, but nobody sees that, because such is the way of the Infiltrator:)

Sorta on topic, what do you people think of returning crossbows, able to be used by warriors, if bows aren't ok with them? Or give warriors javelins or throwing axes: one or two throws up close, then off to melee.-Algol- (talk) 01:01, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I think that all classes should be able to use all weapons as long as they meet the weapon requirements but they might use them so poorly as to not be effective. For example, a warrior could use a staff to hit things but it would not do very much damage but a mage could not use a greatsword if s/he is not strong enough. I think where you choose to spend your attribute points should determine what weapons/armor you can use.

I liked that you could have two weapon sets in Origins but if you start giving your character four or five weapons you have to remember that they are going to be heavy and could get in the way during combat.--CouslandRogue (talk) 23:46, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Why would weapons get in your way? Only rogues get to jump around and play acrobats. And they need only bow and longswords/daggers/axes ... I understand how Bow would get in the way of acrobatics. That should be remedied. But honestly every other weapon is fine.

And about your theory above. They tried giving every weapon to everyone in Mass Effect 1. It ended up acting like a piece of armor. Useless. I was Vanguard (which was very tough to play class in ME1) and I used only guns and shotguns. Sniper and Rifle were on my back constantly but since I had no skill for them, they just went hanging there throughout the game. See why it's good for weapons to have restrictions? Armor is a totally different matter.--Markurion (talk) 00:43, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I rather like the idea of every class being able to use every weapon. Given the way mage's staves look in DA2, many having blades or bludgeons attached, I would even move them to a new Polearm class that includes spears, halberds, and the like. Maybe rogues and mages could be restricted to light and medium arms, but they should still have options.

And why couldn't a mage channel magic through any other kind of weapon? There is a long, proud role-playing tradition of clerics bashing in heads with a mace. I can't be the only person who first found Spellweaver and lamented there weren't more mage-friendly non-staves. Just imagine: a whole spell tree with branches for each weapon class! Son Goharotto (talk) 01:28, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

@ Markurion there’s other weapons besides Sniper rifles in ME? @SunyiNyufi There are other classes besides Infiltrator?! You know I always wanted to see my Warden decked out and transition rather than menu transition, since we do have two sets of weapons anyway. NEED A FREAKIN’ LOCK ON for weapon choice though, since NPCs don’t know that swooping dragons be bad for a dual-wielding rogue’s health. As for if there are weapon restrictions, I would say make more weapon choices then. Warrior carries Crossbow, Shield, Long sword, short sword, gauntet, great sword. Rogue carries, Long bow, Twin Daggers, Whip, knife, musical instrument or just a song. Mage caries Staff, wand, knife, scrolls (or at least let me make a wall of fire for once), potion (alchemy), and magic of course. I also kind of want throwing daggers and weapons in general (& some freakin‘ rope), just so my character could go from Suave Hawke to Rambo Hawke in a quick inventory change.Sir Fritz (talk) 04:00, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

To Markurion. If you have a long sword at your waist, two greatswords, a shield and another long sword on your back and various knives it is likely they would get in the way of each other when you tried to unsheathe one and you would waste precious time at the beginning of a fight.

Also it you can only draw a weapon that is about the length of your arm from your back so I don't know how you would use your greatswords although they apparently can do it in DA.--CouslandRogue (talk) 04:45, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Magic, and doesn't Fenris and Carver use great swords?Sir Fritz (talk) 05:07, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Technically it would be easier to have dagger at the hip, longsword at the hip, shield on the back. Greatsword most definitely have to be on the back.

But length otherwise, it would be HEAVY. Have you ever seen a medieval knight in full armour, cuirass, gauntlet, cuisses, greaves, e.t.c. and a sword and a shield to be wearing anything else? No... because normally, you can barely walk in that get up. As the warrior can't shrug everything behind when a darkspawn randomly pops up, he'll be greatly hindered by the weight. An average medieval armour could weigh 40~70 lb; add a longsword, a tower shield or a large shield, a greatsword, a crossbow, bolts, daggers, and that'll be like backpacking with armour on. Even if that was possible, it won't make much sense for say, a regular mage to use a sword (I'm talking about real life applications here, not Hawke doing 30 ft jumps kind of stuff). Swordplay requires almost as much training as archery, and quite a lot of muscle, even with fencing swords. The only exception to this rule would be the arcane warrior, but as the Warden killed the other arcane warrior and seems to be the only remaining arcane warrior in Thedas (if the Warden was a mage and decided to subclass in that), it won't make sense to have DA3 protagonist have that class without meeting the Warden.

Also, carrying a musical instrument in combat is just not practical. One bad beating and it crumbles. I've seen 20 grand, 30 grand instruments in hard cases get cracks because of getting jostled in public transportation. Do jumping and cartwheeling and kicking and the instrument's pretty much in pieces.

I'm not sure why DA didn't go D&D with wands and scrolls, but it seems they didn't want to do it. The only time you get to use a scroll is the Litany, and the only time you use a wand is when you're with Jowan in the mage origin.

All in all, I found the Warden carrying 7 armour sets in the backpack a little unrealistic (I mean, come on, Hawke had a chest in the house and Warden had a camp... wouldn't they leave spare gear there?), so I'd find the warrior fighting with 2 swords, a crossbow, a dagger, and a tower shield to be a little over the top. Unless the said warrior looks like one of the bronze statues from the Gallows (the one that looks like a Hindu god). - 06:48, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Whoa,whoa, whoa, we got way off topic here. First, the Idea i explained in starting post should be IMPLEMENTED in DA3, along with other changes to gameplay. I'm not talking 100% about real life or 100% of Unreal life. I'm talking about things that were already done in other games and fans liked it.

Granted, medieval knights couldn't be very agile with tons of armor on them, but as I explained in previous post, Serbian and English medieval knights were heavily armored ( i'm talking about wearing 70% of your own weight in armor), but still, they had shields, 1 longsword,1 shortsword and javelin/spear/lance depending on situation. So they were heavy armored AND very well armed. That's saying something about real life. But I'm talking about warriors, who DON'T tend to jump 30ft in the air like rogue in DA2. But how can a rogue wield Greatsword? Or mage? Rogues most definitely WONT use Greatswords and shields. So, devs should just throw out unnecessary things from the game.

That was my point when I mentioned ME1. Wearing all weapons with every class was unnecessary. And still IS. I know, people like experimenting. We all like to have choices, to have freedom to try out something that's not ordinary. But that can be done with mods. Understand the devs. They need to filter out all things before actually starting with work.

And @CouslandRogue, I never mentioned 2 greatswords, longswords AND daggers. I said 1 Greatsword ( or any other 2h weapon) goes over your right shoulder, 1 Longsword OR dagger OR axe OR mace goes across left shoulder and same on left hip. You misunderstood what I wrote. I hope I explained now.--Markurion (talk) 07:48, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I personally very much like the idea in theory, it'd look cool and be easier to swap weapons. What you're suggesting reminds me of the look of the main character in Rise Of The Argonauts, with a spear and mace on his back and sword at his side, as well as a shield on his arm. I would like to see the weapon restrictions gone or changed, because it made very little sense from a gameplay POV. Sure, it was done so you would distinguish between the classes, but I would have thought it would be clear the guy who's constantly disappearing was the rogue and the guy throwing fire is the mage, and the guy who's smashing everyone to pieces is the warrior. As someone's already said here (I think), warriors are supposed to be masters of all weapons, so they should be able to wield all close combat weapons, as well as a ranged weapon of some sort (crossbow would be logical for them). I don't think warriors got any ranged weapon in DA2, so that needs to change. Rogues, I can understand the limitation a bit, because your sneaky guy wouldn't be using a greatsword or a tower shield, but a rogue could use a sword and a small shield, like a buckler, very easily. Throwing weapons would be also very cool to use. Mages should use staves, but also should be able to use a short sword or a dagger, because while it was nice to bash people with the staff, I would have liked to have another weapon to use instead. (isn't it risky to hit people with a magical weapon? what would happen if your staff broke because they defended your attack?) Eggy2504 (talk) 08:03, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Rogues can use bucklers, though, in a lot of fantasy settings. That's a shield. And there are no shortswords in DA (dunno why); you have longswords that vaguely look like bastard swords at times, and greatswords. As for the knight, he usually had a squire with him when in battle, carrying spare lances, blades, e.t.c., not to mention they didn't fight on foot. Since there are practically no horses in Thedas (not in the games, at least) and even after becoming rich Hawke gets to places like a common footpad, I just can't see Alistair carrying a broadsword, a lance, a dagger, a shield, and a flail/battleaxe on himself and running around the Deep Roads. Jousting armour, developed in 15th and 16th centuries, did weigh up to 110lb or so, but they never were meant for free combat. A warhorse couldn't carry much more. The "multiple weapon sets" idea was already done in Bioware's D&D games, and a lot of players (like me) abused it by having all the quickbar slots filled with sets... I recall my paladin once had 7 longsword/darksteel tower shield combos, and 6 broadswords in quickbar slot, meaning that my slight elf paladin was carrying that much around, wore a dragon plate armour, and whole bunch of stuff besides while killing a dragon (it was fun though). I also equipped Alistair with a bow in DAO, and he kept using it, even in close combat. Maybe he was born to be an archer instead. Who knows.

And warriors do jump 30 ft in the air in DA2. Haven't you seen Fenris and Carver jump in the air to deliver a blow? They're like freakin' squirrels. - 08:25, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

"not to mention they didn't fight on foot" - actually they did. Quite often. Since the 15th century, full plate armour was constantly improving, up to the point, that it outmatched most of weapons, and the only thing that could get past it was a direct lance hit. If it missed, it was easier to bludgeon similary armoured opponent on foot. Greatswords and greataxes could be used effectively only on foot. Also, sieges.-Algol- (talk) 10:01, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Knights were trained to fight on foot, but it was as a secondary resort... or that's what the book says, anyway. As for the full plate armour's protection, a well placed bolt could easily puncture the plate armour (which kinda means Varric can take out Cullen any day... heh). Battle of Agincourt shows an example of knights fighting on foot in bad weather conditions: epic defeat (or epic victory, if you're Henry V).

But I'm digressing. My point is, I'm not really interested in my protagonist going Rambo; I can always play Call of Duty or something else if I want my character to wield five weapons. I was quite happy with my Surana wielding a staff and owning the battle, and I'd think I would have been very confused with the skills screen if my Hawke could wield a staff, a dagger, a greatsword, shield/longsword combo, and a lance. Hawke can barely cover two or three skills tree. Warden about the same or perhaps even less.

But then again, my default characters are mages. - 11:42, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

You can only carry two weapons in Call of Duty, plus the knife :)-Algol- (talk) 14:23, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

As far as multiple weapons look to history, Roman Legions carried Sword/Dagger/Shield/ and most had Lance/Pike/or Spear, Then look to the Japanese Samurai usually carried a Dai-Katana There long sword/Katana there short sword/Wakizashi there dagger/plus a Long Bow. Now look at the typical Norse (Viking) Warrior might carry a Shield, Hand Axe, Sword, and Dagger, Some also carried Bows. It is well Documented throughout history that many historic warriors would carry a Bow, a Large Sword or Large Axe, and a Smaller Sword, and a Knife or Dagger, Most usually had a Shield with their King or Lords Crest on it for protections and also to help distinguish one from another on the battle field.--Charlie.look (talk) 17:32, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "dai-katana". Japanese warriors generally carried Katana and Wakizashi, true, but their combat method were completely different. And their armour was extremely lightweight, convering only the head, some arms, and torso. - 22:36, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well said Charlie. And Gabby, my idea also includes player choice about wearing multiple weapons. Just like ME3. You have a slot to equip a weapon, but you don't have to equip it if you don't want to. You wanna fight with just a staff, fine. You equip staff and go. I wanna play my mage who is mixing dagger fight with staff fight. i will equip my mage as I see fit. My Idea does not impose anything. You can still wear what you want, you just now have the option of wearing more weapons. --Markurion (talk) 18:25, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Can't speak about the Japanese, but the Romans were not supposed to use the weapons simultaneously and swap them the way Shepard does. The pilums (throwing spears) were thrown at the approaching enemy and thus discarded, and in close meelee, the shortsword (gladius) was used. The lance(?) , hasta, was used to hold the defence line. So, each weapon had its specific use and was not maintained at all times. - Note also that you typicaly have a combination of one long weapon, a shield and one or two small weapons, which you can comfortably carry and easily draw, since they are positioned at different sides, but not of two (or more!) long weapons. --Ygrain (talk) 19:04, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

What if the weapons were separated into two handed (pole arms,staves, greatswords, bows etc.), one handed (shield, longsword, small axes etc.) and then a category for arrows, bolts (and throwing knives if there are any). Then you could have one two-handed weapon, two one-handed weapons and knives or arrows.

If there are throwing knives I think you should have to learn the throwing knife ability like Herbalism or combat training.--CouslandRogue (talk) 03:12, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the MOTA DLC i believe they already have in plan to have rogues throw daggers. But I wasn't overjoyed with Tallis's combat, so I don't know if they are going in right direction with it.--Markurion (talk) 13:42, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

I like the cut of your jib, CouslandRogue! Having a throwing knife to deal with retreating foes would be awesome. Even better, it could be low damage but deliver an instant stagger, letting my tank close the distance without being pelted by arrows or spells. (Incidentally, the dashing mechanic is one of the things I really like in DA2.) Son Goharotto (talk) 15:09, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, while a regular greatsword can be drawn from behind the two handed swords in Dragon Age do not fit the model, such as a claymore or flamberge, of a typical greatsword. They seem to rely on much larger specimens which can definitly not be drawn from the back. A regular two-handed sword would have a cut along one side of the sheath in order to get the blade out. Now, throwing daggers are pretty badass but there had better be a failure chance to hit. I was slightly annoyed at the accuracy of the tiny murder knife but they can't hit the opponent right in front of them. Spears, I am good with that, I want some spears. They're possibly the most underrated weapon in games and ironically were one of the most important in history, albeit in regards to cavalry, which I have seen no evidence of. Friendlysociopath (talk) 17:31, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Two words: Mabari Cavalry. Son Goharotto (talk) 17:43, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Lol there's a lot of talk about realism in this thread about a fantasy video game...Anyway I agree with CouslandRouge, we can have a two-handed weapon (staff, greatsword, spear, etc) a one handed weapon (shield, sword hand axe, etc) and everyone can carry a dagger additionally I think there should also be a ranged category (bows, crossbows, throwing weapon, etc) that makes for 4 almost perfectly viable weapon categories, and you should not have to fill one if you don't want to (like Makurion said if you only want to carry a staff or something then by all means do so), but any player can equip a two handed weapon, one handed weapon, ranged weapon, and a dagger. I think that's a good set-up without looking too ridiculous. MrRexfire (talk) 19:57, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

To Friendlysociopath. What if there was a failure chance for throwing knives that would decrease with high dex. and more points spent on that ability?--CouslandRogue (talk) 02:02, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't think there is a point in having throwing weapons in the game - they would be weak, short-ranged and have low armor penetration. They certainly wouldn't cause instant stagger either, or at least no better than arrows and more conventional weapons. They MIGHT have higher short-range accuracy than arrows (though not bolts) and higher rate-of-fire, bu on the whole that wouldn't really be enough to warrant their use. Instead, I propose we upgrade the crossbows and/or downgrade bows by giving the former 1.5-2 times the accuracy of the latter, as well as a modest increase to damage and armor penetration to counter their abysmal reload rate and lack of stregth modifiers. Mabari cavalry is simply unrealistic but I would introduce proper cavalry as either a warrior specialisation or skill tree in Warrior school, to finally make them as awesome as other two classes. I think it should work like this:

1st skill: Introductory riding - the warrior can ride a horse without falling but as a small chance too do so under attacks. S/he suffers 33% attack penalty for both melee and ranged weapons and cannot use their skills.

2st skill: Charge: Both melee and ranged warriors can perform a sudden charge on their enemies, knocking them down for 5 s. , decreasing their attack and defense by 7 for 10 seconds and dealing critical damage. The horse can now move backwards as well.

3rd skill: Warrior gains immunity to knockdown while on horse as well as a large bonus to physical resistance. The attack penalty is removed and it is now possible to execute most of their weapon skills (some, like Two-Handed Sweep would simply be impossible to perform without harming the horse itself.)

4th skill: Warrior learns to attack enemies while the horse is on the move (crucially, this allows archer warriors to shoot while moving backwards). The horse itself can also attack enemies when not at motion. The fatigue penalty for being mounted (similar to the penalty for summoning ranger's pets) is decreased.

Obviously cavalry wouldn't be restricted to Warden's party - you will often be attacked by mounted enemies. Also, the darkspawn could have their own blight cavalry - the grunts could have stuff like corrupted pigs or oxen, while alphas would have proper blighted wildlife. Just imagine late-game archer Genlock Alpha (one that knows all archer skills and can do 50 damage per shot) mounted on a Corrupted Spider! 4Ferelden (talk) 02:10, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Would the 1st skill also summon the horse?

I think if there was a cavalry tree there would need to be an infantry tree also. The infantry tree would let you do things like set a spear against a charging horse.--CouslandRogue (talk) 02:28, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would summon it, although you might need to pay for the horse if we make it into the specialisation (which, IMHO, would be great, as then it can act as the counter to the rogue's ranger and mage's shapeshifter.). I'm not sure if the infantry tree is all that warranted, though. After all, cavalry can only be used outdoors, so the specialisation wouldn't work inside buildings or in narrow caves. (To be fair, Ranger should have similar restrictions.) Even if the game spends a lot more time outdoors than Origins, the cavalry abilities themselves probably aren't all that great to warrant a counter. It would be like having an anti-assassin or anti blood mage tree. 4Ferelden (talk) 04:01, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

No, that wont work @4Ferelden. Implementing mounts in Dragon Age is highly unlikely. They cannot do it in 2 years. Not while focusing on improving combat, story and companions. Creating a game big and open enough for using the mounts is a huge effort. Not to mention that previous 2 games were instanced. In short, until they create a REASON for mounts to exist, we wont see them.--Markurion (talk) 13:14, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember exactly but I think I just read something about Orlais having horses. If that is the case then we may indeed end up facing mounted troops. I think it was Zevran's dialogue somwhere. Friendlysociopath (talk) 02:03, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Markurion, isn't the Orlais supposed to be several times larger than Ferelden? This would certainly justify using the mounts. Plus, I don't really think of it as a huge evolution - it will be just a specialisation for warriors, with its set of 4 skills, etc. I don't think it will be any more difficult to implement than mage's shapeshifter, and it will certainly have a much greater payback. 4Ferelden (talk) 02:25, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Think of it like this. If warriors only can use mounts, nobody would wanna play rogues and mages. But if you allow every class to use mounts, than it opens up new problem: do they serve as transport or do they use them for mounted combat?

Fans would appreciate both i think, but mounted combat is something everybody wants since Mount&Blade first showed up. If they decide to go along that path, it opens up a whole new possibilities. They now have to create new engine for mounted combat, new animations, new customization.Creating new engine is probably the longest part of game creation. It can take months if not years. That's why Origins took 5 years to make.

They may decide to go like ME2. You know, replacing MAKO with the floating thingy, Flamewalker DLC. But I wasn't happy about that. You only had specific missions made specifically for that vehicle. You couldn't use it in original game missions. That was a total bust in my opinion, and something like that certainly wouldn't be welcome in DA3.--Markurion (talk) 11:00, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

If only warriors can use mounts, nobody would wanna play rogues and mages.

To me, it's the opposite; warriors will become just as awesome as rogues and mages using mounts is limited to them. In the original game, mages are justifiedly overpowered to justify the restrictions against them, while rogues can pick locks, disarm traps, use stealth and learn essential auxiliary skills (coercion, trap-making, poison-making, etc.) MUCH faster than the warriors. All the warriors had was the ability to use all weapons in the game, aptitude to heavy armor and the ability to draw enemies towards or away from them. The former is kinda null, as the aforementioned rogue advantages make DW/ranged warriors a nigh-pointless exercise, while the other two are offset by rogues having much higher defense (if you invest all points in dexterity and combat training for archer rogue, it is entirely possible to hit 100 defense by level 6 with the use of Defensive Fire.) and the late-game ability to feign death/enter stealth. The ability to use mounts will thus be a redeeming feature of warriors, acting as a counter to rogues' stealth and lockpicking and partially offsetting mages' spellcasting.

I don't really think animations have to change all that much, given the slow speed of Origins combat and the lack of DA2 jumping around, etc. Almost all weapon abilities are just different swings/hits, so the only change required would be to have the character bend down a bit to execute the attack. Different customisation isn't really necessary: everyone in Oblivion went along fine before the horse armor. In the same vein, no-one asked for the shapeshifter's forms to be able to wear specially crafted belts, so here a couple of restricted rider gloves/boots should be enough (similar to the way different mages' specialisations have stuff like Lifedrinker and Spellweaver). 4Ferelden (talk) 02:02, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Like I said earlier: Mabari cavalry. If DA3 continues revisits the ability to have a summonable pet, mounting it could be a specialization itself. Riding it could limit your use of regular combat skills, but come with its own advantages. Bonuses to damage and speed, as well as special attacks like a crowd-clearing charge. It wouldn't necessarily need to be limited to warriors either. Son Goharotto (talk) 03:11, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Please be realistic for once. Mabari are about the size of pigs and wouldn't be able to carry a character around at anything resembling speed, let alone turn while doing so, attack, etc. Of course, I'm assuming its hind legs don't buckle straightaway, leading you to ungracefully slide off its back. Seriously, just look at its hind leg structure! It certainly isn't designed to support any downward pressure from having a large load (you) on the creature's back. Seriously, that is a completely unrealistic idea, and introducing it would also damage the continuity: if mabaris can be mounted, how come the Ash Warriors, who know more about mabari than anyone else, haven't figured out to do so? Just go back to the common cavalry for now and leave riding unusual creatures to darkspawn. 4Ferelden (talk) 08:28, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

First of all, stop bringing up the matter of "realism." This is a video game. There is nothing realistic about someone swinging around a six foot long sword and jumping twenty feet onto a dragon's head. There is nothing realistic about turning into a giant spider and back again, yet somehow retaining all of one's clothes and possessions. The issue is not about maintaining realism; it's about having a consistent atmosphere. Thedas is a dark-fantasy, high-magic setting. This is not the Middle Ages of the real world and we are not constrained by the same physics.

Given that you compare mabari to pigs in size, I should point that that pig riding is genuinely possible. Not particularly intelligent or practical, but possible. A mabari is a helluva lot stronger and smarter than a pig. With a low-slung saddle a la warg riders of The Two Towers, I could see mabari riding to be somewhat feasible for a small, lightly armored person. We already know that dogs are used as beasts of burden in Ferelden. I seem to recall seeing cows in the game, but no horses. It may have to do with Ferelden being a mountainous and thickly forested region. Not the sort of place you tend to find equines.

Mabari aside, I could definitely imagine some other type of rideable pet summon in DA3. If it's going to be set in Orlais, then we have a precedent for riding a wyvern in Mark of the Assassin. A mount like Leopold, of course, would be completely game-breaking. But my point is: you guys are too fixated on the idea of riding horses specifically. Traditional cavalry would completely transform combat mechanics in DA. But a pet that you can mount would be far easier (and interesting) to implement. In a setting like this, there are plenty of other options. Think outside the box. Son Goharotto (talk) 15:55, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Thats what I was saying about realism lol, I mean I don't want characters jumping around like magical ninjas on drugs, but there is little reason for all this talk about realism in not only a video game but a fantasy world video game. MrRexfire (talk) 20:04, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. There's always going to be a disconnect between game mechanics and narrative atmosphere. DA2 took things in a slightly too exaggerated direction, but I don't really see BioWare reversing course in that regard. So there's no real sense in complaining that something is going to be "unrealistic." What's more important is if it's fun. Son Goharotto (talk) 22:34, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Despite unrealistic background, some amount of realism must be present. Imagine this for example. Protagonist goes on a mission. He takes with him 3 companions. 1 is a mage, 2 is a rogue melee and 3 is a rogue archer. You are warrior ofc. Battle ensues, mage swirls around his staff and rains hell on enemy groups, rogue goes stealth and backstabs random enemies, Archers stands beside mage and headshots anyone who dares to come close enough. And you somehow create horse out of thin air climb up and charge into a thickest group.

Couple of minutes later, battle is over, Protagonist climbs down from a horse and continues traveling with his companions on foot.

Something's amiss perhaps?--Markurion (talk) 22:05, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to point out that summoning a pet is especially weird? Because we've been able to do that since the beginning.

Actually, forget about about the whole riding thing. How about this? Each class gets a different summonable pet!

Mabari for the warriors (and maybe bonuses if you pick the Ash Warrior specialization), a small wyvern for mages (there were dragonlings in the Ferelden Circle Tower, so wyverns in Orlais isn't too outrageous), and rogues could get... uh... a shadowcat? (Borrowing from Game of Thrones, lol.) Functionally, they could have many of the same animations. Maybe even a pet training mini-quest that earns them a couple unique abilities! Son Goharotto (talk) 22:34, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

hahahah, no, no, my point wasn't the weirdness of summoning a horse. My point was: Why would I go on foot when I have a horse? And why wouldn't my companions have a horse if I have it? What, I'm gonna ride from Frostback mountains to Val Roayeux and they will walk beside me? That's absurd almost as much as is the summoning of the horse in combat only.

P.S. this tread was actually discussing about multiple weapons, dunno how we got to discussing mounts.--Markurion (talk) 23:20, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

CouslandRogue brought up the idea of having a ranged weapon class beyond just bows and arrows. Friendlysociopath mentioned spears and their use by (and against) cavalry, which doesn't seem to exist in Thedas. I jokingly brought up mabari cavalry. Then 4Ferelden ran with it by devising a whole skill tree for cavalry combat. That's how it happened. =D Son Goharotto (talk) 23:50, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

This is not the Middle Ages of the real world and we are not constrained by the same physics.

Isn't the whole idea that the magic, darkspawn and other things are the ONLY differences between Medieval Europe and Thedas? I actually want to be fully constrained by consistent physics, because that makes iit all the more interesting. Regarding your non-examples, Dragon's head jump is just a stupid cutscene that can be safely dismissed, while the medieval greatswords actually were that tall - just look here. I have seen a couple of YouTube pig riding videos, but none of them had grown-ups on them, let alone armoured ones. Mabari might have more muscular strength than a pig, but it is much lighter and so isn't able to support as much. Also, introducing mabari riding would break the consistent setting by going against the Ash Warriors canon at Ostagar.

To address the travelling issues - perhaps your whole party will travel in the ox-driven cart/s with all their loot, camping gear and stuff, while you and other warriors possessing such skill get to ride on horses? That would certainly make sense, considering how all Origins merchants have such carts, so why shouldn't your party have them? It will change anature of random encounters a bit, but on the whole, that would be a rather good change.

Regarding combat, I presume you might start already mounted if you have summoned a horse earlier. However, it would probably be illegal to summon a horse X kilometres away from where you would realistically leave it. Similar laws would apply to rangers, with restrictions on how many pets they can summon in a particular area, as well as having the pet enter from a certain side, rather than appear next to you. Shapeshifters would obviously have no such restrictions(and regarding the clothing issues, remember that the battles are technically supposed to be even longer than they're shown in Origins, so you could well say that the instantaneous change is actually 2-3 minutes of redressing.) Finally, all 3 "animal" specialisations - rider,shapeshifter, ranger would be illegal to use in cities - the latter two for pretty obvious reasons, the former, for the lack of better excuse, because of the urban hygiene considerations. 4Ferelden (talk) 01:49, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the whole idea that the magic, darkspawn and other things are the ONLY differences between Medieval Europe and Thedas?

Yeah. Magic, darkspawn, and other things. Such minor differences... 9_9 Son Goharotto (talk) 01:53, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

The difference in some respects doesn't mean that all aspects should be different. The magic and all other things are justified in-game. Weak or inconsistent gravity or laws of physics. Not so much. 4Ferelden (talk) 02:21, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

What I was pointing out is that the game mechanics reflect the high-fantasy tone of the games. There's all kinds of ridiculous stuff happening both in-game and in-cutscene. Trying to be "realistic" was never the goal, especially when you're talking about a setting with magic, darkspawn, fantastic races, mystical creatures, and dogs that understand human speech.

The goal is to maintain a consistent atmosphere that allows the player to accept the breaks in reality. Thedas is founded on those breaks from reality. If not for the magic, darkspawn, fantastic races, mystical creatures, and dogs that understand human speech, this wouldn't be Dragon Age. Insisting that summoning a horse or riding a dog might be silly because it's not realistic doesn't really hold up under any argument. Son Goharotto (talk) 02:29, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, my comment on greatswords was based on the really big ones like Yusaris. I know a guy who actually made a moderately sized greatsword (I think it was from Devil May Cry) and the damn thing weighs 35 pounds. Carrying that along with other weaponry seems excessive, one primary weapon set and secondary set is more than enough. The bit about spears was meant purely on an enemy basis, i.e. bonus damage against mounts or something; I don't want mounted combat for the player, I only brought it up because I was in Zevran's dialogue and I saw something abuot horses. It's all about the world; I like anime and anime style fighting, in an anime game such as Disgaea. Dragon Age doesn't fit the mold, so I don't want that style of fighting. Friendlysociopath (talk) 02:43, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Son Goharotto: Firtly, Thedas is a softer-core DARK FANTASY, not a high one. Secondly, you seem to consistently disregard all the codex entries that explain how things like magic, darkspawn, fantastic races, mysticval creatures and dogs that can react to the tone of the human voice without consistently understanding (as Alistair-Dog party banters make excruciatingly clear) can and would work. It might not be Dragon Age if it didn't have these things, but it sure as hell wouldn't be Dragon Age if it dind't provide consistently logical, realistic explanations for how all these things work. So, you're effectively desperately trying to justiify your idea that simply jars with the setting AND the first game (you have still failed to explain the basic question as to why nobody rode a dog at Ostagar). Sorry, it's not going to work, whichever way you look at it. 4Ferelden (talk) 03:12, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

4Ferelden: One of us is taking this far too seriously. And it isn't me. Since you're so insistent on completely missing the point, I'll just have to be the bigger man and find someone more reasonable to talk to. Son Goharotto (talk) 03:31, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll have to be the third party here that everyone hates. You are both crazy! Usage of word realism in this tread is just an expression. What we AND Bioware need to understand is the word AESTHETICS. Combat does NOT have to be real. Dual wielding 2 swords is highly improbable in real life. Using longsword with shortsword or dagger, YES. Using 2 longswords, NOT GONNA HAPPEN. And yet we see it in DAO. It is still cool, and I will always choose DW warriors as favorite class. Carrying several types of weapons at same time isn't practical in real life unless you are armored knight on horse, but it LOOKS cool. Jumping on dragon's head isn't possible, even if dragons existed in real world (sad smile :(), but again, it LOOKS cool. Now, dashing across the battlefield with 35kg heavy greatsword like it was shown in DA2 may sound and look cool in theory, but in the game it was very poorly done and it was sooo NOT cool. Same with many weapons and spells. So, people, for future reference in fantasy games, realism actually means aesthetics. --Markurion (talk) 15:39, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Nicely said lol MrRexfire (talk) 15:53, April 21, 2012 (UTC)