QDI

Ok, thank you!

Hello, In old DnD, Druids used to be very good casters and excellent hand to hand fighters once transformed. I heard they are the best casters at the moment (and will therefore be nerfed). But are they good in melee too? Or are Spiritshifts too weak? Thank you!

It seems a bit complex to be fair. How do you explain it to players ? How do you present it in-game ? And I don't think it will promote "the ultimate in INT character decision-making" since you will always take the smallest possible AoE to maximize the duration.

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion: imho, having balanced attributes (that is, attributes that bring the same amount of power to a character) is the antithesis of min-maxing. Look at Baldur's Gate! For a figther, mental attributes were useless so you could dump them to 3. For a mage, wisdom was useless so you could dump it to 3. Even for a bard, charism was not so useful and you could let it at the minimum required. And in the current Beta build, perception is useless so you can dump it easily. As I understand, the proposition aims at redistributing power among the attributes so you won't be able to dump perception (or you will be punished for it). This is an unfair and unaccurate criticism when you read the work of Sensuki and Matt.

If it's anything like BG, sure!

Ah I was hoping it would cap at 14-ish, allowing a balanced character to get almost everything. Well, there is still the "ugly" argument. And you could also have your penalties/bonuses be non linear to reinforce the "extreme" side of a min maxed character (a socially inept genius or a brainless brute...)

In theory, the dialog options are supposed to keep people away from the 3/18 distribution and direct them to the 13/13 distribution. I know I won't minmax because I don't want to miss out on content. Well, and 3/18 looks ugly too :D

Either I don't understand what Josh Sawyer is talking about or you don't. Nothing about the risk/reward of the base AoE (in this example, a fireball) changes. The friendly-fire AoE of fireball will be the same size in an 18-int will be the same as a 3-int wizard. The tactical considerations are unchanged. My understanding of Sawyer's plan is to make it so that the 18-int wizard is not punished for investing in an attribute by making it more difficult for him to utilize fireball than a 3-Int wizard. Also, no offense intended, but I a lot of the reticence to this idea comes more from guttural nostalgia than from anything else. If part of your AoE only hits ennemies, you negate the usual trade off of fireballs. "if I want to hit an ennemy, I will hit my frontline too". In fact, the base AoE (wich is friendly fire) becomes irrelevant because you won't use it anymore. You will always position your spells so as to hit with the outer ring only. You don't have to take risks anymore by hitting your own troops (low risks) but you continue to deal massive damage (high reward).

I do and don't understand that perspective. I understand wanting a justification, but it's always seemed fitting to me. Many AoE spells/effects originate at a point and spread outward. Fireball is probably the most obvious example, but I tend to think of most effects that way. You're a super smarty, so as you extend the AoE outward, you are able to selectively shape it at the margins, where it terminates. You can't do it on the interior because that's the origin of the effect, where it's emanating from. That's always been my view of it, anyway. I really don't like this idea (having the outward portion of AoE spells be foes only). It feels very game-y. Sure it helps balance but at the cost of consistency and elegance. Moreover, you remove the AoE trade off (I hit a bunch of ennemies but my frontline too) as people will position their spells to only hit with the outward ring. This will lead to odd situations where you throw your fireball in the middle of nowhere to maximize the outward ring... As for the "RP explanation": anything can be explained with RP but it still hurts the suspension of disbelief. This being said, props to Sensuki and Matt for their work, and to Josh for his participation

I'd be interested in reading it as well (even without having access to the beta).

l love your proposition, OP (especially the part about PER). Power should be distributed as equally as possible among attributes.