PizzaSHARK

You're pretty much advocating turning everyone into auto-attacking bots. The closest Deadfire comes to having tactical depth is deciding how and when to use your power points. Emphasizing careful and considered use of power points is likely the best way to tweak and balance combat in such a way that player powers are constrained while simultaneously increasing depth. Personally I'd favor a system where you don't have discrete resources, and instead just a total power points pool that grows at the same rate. Do you spend your last 2 points on the Rogue ability, or spend 1 point to buff yourself with Frenzy or Disciplined Barrage? I'd also cause all attack abilities to vary based on what you have equipped - they are Primary Attack if you are 2H, 1H, or S&B and cost 1 resource, or -1 resource compared to current costs. They are Full Attack if you are TWS, and cost +1 points over their current costs. This should hopefully balance out TWS dramatically out-performing other options due to basically getting to hit twice for 1 point with spammable tier 1 abilities, though I think TWS might also need like -1 penetration on both weapons as well. The game engine cannot provide tactical depth, so we have to look elsewhere for it.

Which is why I think they just need to jettison d20 mechanics and cliches entirely and just make the game they clearly want to make. And then actually do some goddamned ****ing QA for once in their lives. After Deadfire I absolutely cannot recommend Obsidian games to anyone before they've been out for at least 3-6 months. ****ing Bugsidian...

I want to see Form of the Fearsome Brute (both Transmuter unique ability and the potion) get a rework. As a concept it's ****ing awesome, but in practice it's absolutely awful. For those not aware of what it does, it does the following: - Gives you +4 Might, +2 Con, -2 Dex, -4 Int - Replaces equipped weapons with ogre fists, which have very high base damage and deal pierce/crush damage but attack very slow; these fists benefit from Two Weapon Style (as you're effectively 'dual wielding' your fists) but do not benefit from Transcendent Suffering or Monastic Unarmed Training. They also do not benefit from any sort of special effects or benefits from equipped weapons. Damage and penetration scale with level, and they receive an accuracy bonus as well (so basically really big, really slow monk fists.) Ogre fists do not have the Haymaker modal. - Replaces equipped armor with special armor with base 7 Armor Rating and... +100% Recovery. Armor rating scales with level... slowly. - Disables all forms of spellcasting, including Priest, Druid, Cipher, and Wizard spells and Chanter Invocations. Ciphers still continue to generate Focus and Chanters continue to generate Phrases. - Replaces and is replaced by Druid spiritshifting. So there are clearly conceptual issues here. Notably, +100% Recovery on the equipped armor is ****ing insane considering it's about equivalent to medium armor and the Armor Rating scaling is such that you'll get +8 armor well after you've had Fine armor for a while, +9 long after you got Exceptional, etc. Because it replaces your armor, it also means you don't gain any special benefits from it; if you were borrowing Eder's armor, you wouldn't get the auto-revive property, for example. This is a pretty ****ing big deal, not just because it discourages a Transmuter from seeking out increasingly shiny and interesting armor. Similarly, ogre fists don't scale at the rate you're likely to find new equipment and you lose any special effects associated with that equipment. Even more notably, a Transmuter is practically forced to build to dual wield since single weapon style, sword and board style, 2H weapon, etc are all effectively useless while transformed... and you probably wouldn't pick Transmuter if not because you wanted to become a brown Hulk. In short, there is absolutely no justifiable reason to use a Transmuter right now because their special benefit spell is more often a hindrance than a benefit, especially since it effectively forces you to take a martial class if you want to multiclass (which is fine, ultimately, I don't mind it locking out all spells and not just Wizard spells, it's exactly like spiritshifting for Shifter druids.) I don't know why you can't just use your equipped weapons and armor - if I can transform my body into an ogre's, surely I can adjust my armor and weapons to fit my new size. Enemies don't lose their weapons and armor when I turn them into a pig, after all!

it's supposed to put a stop to pre-buffing. it only makes sense as a game mechanic; realistically yeah, it's hard to justify it. but the idea itself is sound i think, since pre-buffing is extremely tedious, but if you as a designer assume no pre-buffing, players who do it will find the game too easy, albeit tedious. with combat buffs only you'll at least have to choose and prioritize them more carefully. Except players already solve this by just plinking someone with an arrow and chugging potions and buffing before combat actually starts. Personally, I'd rather buffs be activated automatically on entering combat - maybe have a single quickslot that's dedicated to "drink this/apply this poison/cast this buff scroll centered on you etc immediately at the start of combat" with severely reduced activation and recovery times... but you can only ever have ONE of them in that slot at any given time. With how pervasive crafting and consumables are, it's kind of dumb to make it so cumbersome to use them or pretend like players won't use them in every battle (unless they can't be bothered because it's a pain in the ass.) After that, make use of consumables in combat provoke a Disengagement Attack (maybe just need to rename them to Attack of Opportunity, there's a reason AOs have been in every edition of d20 since 3E and are commonly seen in other rule systems too - they solve a lot of problems by adding necessary risk to certain actions) to discourage spamming consumables without carefully considering the tactical situation. I'd also change buff spells to universally have very short (0.5 sec) cast times, and then also change it so that Inspirations and Afflictions run concurrently and Inspirations don't suppress Afflictions (although they'll cancel each other out, such as a +5 Intelligence and a -5 Intelligence, but other things like friend-or-foe attacks, Power Level increase, etc remain.)

The piracy theme is just one party of the greater whole. The setting sort of feels like the Caribbean meets the political intrigue of Renaissance Europe. I love the setting very much, it's immersive and exciting and tons of fun...but it's not terribly original, it's just the Maluka Archipelago circa the 16th century translated into a fantasy setting. That's all it is. I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion; these aren't themes that are commonly explored in video games and it's a setting that isn't commonly seen in a video game, both of which are really cool. I just mean that it isn't some masterpiece of uniqueness and originality. Originality in a traditional fantasy setting is going to be more or less impossible at this point. Tolkien is the grandpappy of fantasy settings and you could say that between Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Golarion we've seen all you can possibly see. Taking disparate real-world cultures and civilizations from various points of history and transplanting them into the setting as discrete nations or realms is standard and expected. Edo era or Meiji era Japan, various Chinese dynasties (typically Han, Qing, or Song), ancient Rome, ancient Greece, ancient Egypt, medieval Muslim regions (middle east, north africa, and west africa generally), medieval India and sometimes British Raj India, and of course Europe. Renaissance is less common but can be found in settings that allow early firearms, Da Vinci's sketches made real, etc. Eora is no different here; at best, we can compare it to Eberron, where the setting uses established tropes and cliches but manages to do a few things creatively with them (for Eora it's the concept of the soul, the wheel, animancy, etc.) Planescape and Numenera are some of the only settings I can think of that I'd genuinely say are pretty original. Monte Cook usually has THAT going for him, if nothing else. More on topic, I think the setting of Deadfire is just fine. I had a lot of fun exploring until I realized how little there was that was ACTUALLY INTERESTING when it came to exploring. More boring ship battles, more bounty hunts that take place in a completely open featureless area, lots of little dungeons that are each quite lovely and beautiful but only few of which were of any real interest (not mentioning them here because no spoilers), etc. I had a lot more fun with the setting of Deadfire than I ever did with Dyrwood. Act 1 (Gilded Vale etc) was different enough to be interesting, what with the Hollowborn crisis and stuff, but by time I reached Act 2 I was like "oh this is just a Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms clone." I think that was half the point of setting the game in the Dyrwood, though - to ease players into the setting with something that feels familiar.

Rest and attrition gameplay are clearly not what they're designing for, though. That's kind of the point - it's a vestigial d20 feature that they don't seem to be willing to just cut off and be rid of. They'd have to rewrite more than half the game to make attrition-based gameplay relevant again. That's beside the point. You said it was tedious, i explained why that's completely subjective rather than factual. It's factually tedious. You, in fact, reinforced this by explaining how little resting matters - even if that wasn't your intended objective.

I'm not sure why you're using level 20 as an example. You should be using level 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Or do you think the entire game is designed and balanced around level 20 gameplay, and the player starts at level 20?

Rest and attrition gameplay are clearly not what they're designing for, though. That's kind of the point - it's a vestigial d20 feature that they don't seem to be willing to just cut off and be rid of. They'd have to rewrite more than half the game to make attrition-based gameplay relevant again. I don't think you understand. I'm not saying casters are weak (aside from Priests, who are basically brought for Devotions and that's it), I'm saying that they are vastly more limited than martials because they no longer have a whole toolbox of things to work with and that negatively impacts encounter design possibilities.

Rogues are extremely good. Assassin/Devoted can often instagib most foes with a Full Attack from stealth. Streetfighter's bonuses are almost always active because boss fights always have mooks spawning in and other encounters in PotD tend to spam bodies at you. Trickster is... okay, I guess? Might as well just do X/Illusionist though. Rogues also get some really great skills, including being one of the only classes with a 1-cost Full Attack ability (the other being Paladin, IIRC) available at tier 1. Top classes atm, to me, would be (in no particular order): Pure Evoker blaster wizard (open with empowered AOE spell, rest, repeat) Paladin/Chanter support/tank Streetfighter/Goldpact immortal DPS/tank/everything Assassin/Devoted instagib DPS (can be ranged or melee, both work) Helwalker/Berserker OR Helwalker/Devoted AOE spam DPS Obsidian have a really tough job ahead of them if they want power level to be relevant to martial classes. Even if you gave 10% more sneak attack with power levels, rogues would still gain far more by taking paladin or fighter multi than sticking with pure rogue. I can't believe a team with so much tabletop experience thought that allowing full-power/full-access multiclassing wouldn't cause massive balance issues.

You basically want a active multi-role unit. I recommend one of the following: Wizard/Fighter - Top tier tank, mid tier melee/caster dps, top tier debuff/disable, low tier heals Wizard/Paladin - Like fighter but gives up melee dps for more tanking and better heals... problem is, you dont need more tanking. Wizard/Monk - so OP that is practically broken. Makes the game trivial like any other crit monk build. Wizard/Fighter is my recommendation. Powerful at every level without feeling broken and can cover any role effectively (except healing) depending on who you bring with you. Good engagements, and can tank anything with a shield or can off tank and DPS with dual wield or 2H. Armored Grace means you can wear the heaviest of armors and still be useful on offense. With mid weight armor, can have zero recovery. Can fly around the field and target casters/ranged easily. Good range DPS, good AOE DPS, and tons of debuffs and disables. Self heal during the important early engagement when you need it the most (when ever ranged unit is targeting and every melee gets a hit on engagement). Pretty much a great all round class and can be very active if you want him to be. Can be lazy when you want too. Priest/Fighter or Priest/Paladin is going to be their best choice. Spells offer utility, Fighter and Paladin are both quite chufty and provide plenty of utility on their own, and Priests can get away with sacrificing power levels a lot more easily than can wizards. Priests also incorporate behavior requirements into their gameplay, which OP said was one reason they were drawn to Paladins. You could take opposing orders and deities with a Priest/Paladin and be forced to decide whether your god or your order is more important to you at any given time. Bleak Walker of Eothas, anyone? Could you spin that as being a Gaunite, in a decidedly "good is not nice" manner of speaking?

Evoker is a blaster mage, so you want to be a pure wizard to maximize your power level (particularly important for getting more projectiles on missile spells as quickly as possible since they're your bread and butter spells.) If you want to focus on buffing yourself to monstrous proportions, you'd want to run an Enchanter or Illusionist. It just so happens most of the control spells are also enchantments or illusions.

You can switch proficiency with retraining. I'd recommend war bow or hunting bow until you find a unique weapon you really like, ideally one with split damage types. Crossbows are great until you fight skeletons or most blights. If you want to focus on maximizing crit chance and crit damage, pick any single-handed ranged weapon and use OWS. +12 Accuracy and 20% Hit to Crit ensures you'll be critting up a storm. I'd also recommend NOT using Sharpshooter because Rangers in general are pretty bad right now. You have a lot of really good options to mix with Devoted: take a Paladin for Flames of Devotion spam and their amazing buffs and passives (+5 Accuracy, +5% Hit to Crit aura.) Take Rogue for mobility, even more Hit to Crit, and of course massive sneak attack bonuses; Assassin is REALLY nasty assuming you start the fight from stealth. Barbarians can, for unexplainable reasons, use ranged weapons for Barbaric Blow and Frenzy increases your ranged weapon damage output (MY BULLETS ARE SO ****ING ANGRY!!!!!!) Similarly, Monks can use guns and bows and **** with all of their abilities for some weird reason. If you want to focus purely on crits, take a single-handed ranged weapon (pistol, blunderbuss, wand, or scepter IIRC) and go Devoted/Assassin. If you take one of the goodie two-shoes backgrounds, Aloth will come with a pretty badass scepter, so kindly relieve him of it and put it to better use than he ever will. Dual wielding one-handed ranged weapons and spamming out Full Attacks will produce even more insane DPS but you lose the 20% Hit to Crit passive and the inherent +12 Accuracy of OWS. Serafen's custom blunderbuss is also a really good early game candidate for this kind of build.

Barbarians are like most martials... you get way too much from multiclassing so it's hard to justify a pure unless you're doing it for RP reasons. Go Berserker/Devoted, retrain as needed to switch your proficiency to the latest and greatest weapons, go nuts. Berserker/Kind Wayfarer or Berserker/Bleak Walker gets spammable Full Attacks and Paladins can pick up a passive feat to give them Intelligence resistance, negating the downside of Berserker without needing specific equipment to do it. Realistically, it doesn't even matter if you don't get Intelligence resistance because the -5 Int will already make your Carnage AOE tiny or literally nonexistent depending on if you put any points into Int to begin with. I'd just go Berserker with 10-12 Int and then rely on Fighter or Monk multiclass for your AOE needs. Note that you can get a soulbound poleaxe pretty much immediately after getting your boat, and while it's probably not the best weapon in the game for a Barbarian mix, it's going to carry you through most everything for the first half at least. Just head south of Maje Island, then sail east and look for a storm hovering over an island. Save before entering the storm and just keep doing it until you get an outcome you're comfortable with (losing 1-2 crew to failed skill checks is expected, but who cares? Ship **** doesn't matter to begin with) then go get your slash/shock split damage "I win" stick. Typical stat distribution for PotD applies. Max Perception, heavy investment into Dexterity. You can justify putting points into Might since Barbarians don't get a ton of damage amps like Rogues and some other classes do.

That implies it's being done intentionally, like trolling. I think they just... didn't really think it all the way through before posting.

to be honest they don't have a good reason at all and i think it doesn't need one. why? it's fantasy and it's just a game. do you really think a few humans (except the watcher with supernatural abilities) can beat dragons, ogres let alone big cats? go throw a few humans in a cage with a lion and see how it turn out Well if I could use my soul-power to send an ogre flying and speed-dash 25m in half a second then yeah, sure. I'll take that bet. I'd assume dragons would effectively be physical gods, unless they have a really tough time channeling soul energy for some reason. Dragons are already physically imposing, but then add sapience and longevity to the mix... you'd figure they'd basically be running things unless the "real" gods directly intervened in some way.

Is there anything to indicate that 'picking one with good spells and keeping it forever' isn't intended behaviour? Just because you can switch grimoires doesn't mean the devs didn't imagine players would stick with one the really liked. This presents design issues. You can't design encounters around "hey, let's design this to be very tough if the player doesn't, say, debuff with the 2nd level Miasma spell and then hit them with an AOE disable like Confusion," because you can't guarantee that the player has access to those spells. So you have to design a fight such that a player with a blaster mage can handle it just as readily as one with a control mage... and vice-versa. What's the point of including grimoire swapping at all if they don't intend players to make use of it? I think the current system could be used as-is if Wizards had separate grimoire slots rather than having to pay a "quick slot tax" that no other class has to deal with. I don't think the added versatility of an extra grimoire really presents that much of a balancing problem, considering the speed at which Wizards can cast spells. The speed a fart travels upwind? I'd say it impacts Priests more than anyone, to be honest. Priests in Pillars, particularly, were seemingly designed around having that Swiss Army Knife and I think were often played reactively as often as proactively, especially if you didn't know the encounter's gimmicks ahead of time. The combination of limiting their spell selection and making Inspirations suppress Afflictions (and giving everyone and their grandma a bunch of self-buffs at low cost) has largely removed that aspect of Priest gameplay, which is maybe why they feel so weak to me. Or maybe it's because Xoti's attributes are all over the place and she kinda sucks as both Priest and as a Monk.

I don't have numbers, so I can't say "most of these people" are running power builds in a game mode that hasn't yet been tuned for difficulty, so of course it is too easy. I didn't powerbuild i am cruising through PotD. I am by no means a good player or a min maxer. I have to look for combats 3-4 lvls ahead of me to even have a contest. PotD is certainly underdeveloped, which is a rather sad thing on release. I think Obsidian dramatically underestimated how broken multiclassing makes martials, because it's really only martials you see talked about being overpowered (well, I guess chanters are technically sort of a spellcaster?) Martials don't gain nearly as much from power level advancement as casters do, and a lot of the best abilities are fairly early (Fighters get effectively permanent Aware and Concentration at 1st level for only 1 resource, Barbarians get Hardy+Tenacious for 1 resource and no penalty with Intelligence resistance, Monks get an exploding dice AOE attack at tier 3, etc) and hitting things with a pair of swords costs zero resources while Wizards, Druids, etc must spend finite resources to do anything particularly meaningful. I have a hunch that someone, or several someones, on the design team really hate quadratic wizards and wanted to really "punish" people for playing casters in Deadfire. My first character was a Devoted/Helwalker because I never really tried a Monk in Pillars and it sounded fun. Turns out I sort of stumbled across what is arguably the strongest melee DPS build in the game (there's a lot of competition so they're all better in some areas, I'd say Streetfighter/Goldpact is the only other build that comes close, trading raw DPS potential for being basically invulnerable) and it basically made a joke of everything. Like you, anything remotely close to my level was a joke.

And miss out on the comedic opportunity? For shame. I was really disappointed at the total lack of Eder's obsession with petting things getting the party into a jam.

I've never had issues with enemies placing debuffs on me thanks to inspirations overriding afflictions. Fighters always have a Perception inspiration active so they never have to worry about being Blinded, Barbarians always have Might and Constitution inspirations up, Paladins have permanent resistance to ****ing everything through passive feats, etc. Did you have issues with debuffs in your playthrough? I was actually pretty disappointed I never really had to worry about getting stunlocked etc like in Pillars. The resistance mechanic on top of inspirations suppressing afflictions is just way too good, especially since enemies with such buffs and resistances are pretty uncommon and are typically bosses and not regular mooks.

Is there anything to indicate that 'picking one with good spells and keeping it forever' isn't intended behaviour? Just because you can switch grimoires doesn't mean the devs didn't imagine players would stick with one the really liked. This presents design issues. You can't design encounters around "hey, let's design this to be very tough if the player doesn't, say, debuff with the 2nd level Miasma spell and then hit them with an AOE disable like Confusion," because you can't guarantee that the player has access to those spells. So you have to design a fight such that a player with a blaster mage can handle it just as readily as one with a control mage... and vice-versa. What's the point of including grimoire swapping at all if they don't intend players to make use of it? I think the current system could be used as-is if Wizards had separate grimoire slots rather than having to pay a "quick slot tax" that no other class has to deal with.

Which have created a ridiculous number of problems because they seemingly didn't think there would be anything wrong with giving players full access to two classes simultaneously. Wizard, Priest, and maybe Druid are the only classes that genuinely seem better pure classed, everything else gains too much from going multi to warrant sticking for the 8th and 9th level powers. Even then, once they fix Wizards and Priests having redundant spells or incredibly underpowered spells, it might be those two also gain more from going multi than staying pure. Subclasses also don't really strike me as being that interesting. Some, like Devoted, are brainless "of course I'll take it" choices once you understand certain gameplay mechanics (such as being able to retrain that one proficiency you get, so you never have to use a non-proficient weapon and therefore never suffer the subclass' drawbacks.) Others seem difficult to justify under almost any circumstance (Form of the Fearsome Brute is utter garbage so there's no reason to ever make a Transmuter, etc.) This is to be expected from such dramatic changes, but I wonder if they were even necessary. Character creation and progression was horribly boring and static in Pillars, but was creating a multiclass system really the best way to fix that?

In real world terms, muscle strength is directly correlated with muscle size - the literal length of muscle fibers, the density of those fibers, etc. In terms of other settings, it's why dwarves either have a Strength bonus compared to humans, or why they're able to ignore the weight of armor that slows humans down (basically "they're strong for their size" in a different gameplay representation.) That doesn't necessarily matter in Eora because of the soul power concept, but it does make me wonder why Dwarves and Amaua are apparently much stronger-willed (or however "soul power" is represented) than the other kith races, and why Orlans are weaker-willed while simultaneously stronger-willed compared to other kith. Shortest answer is that they probably shouldn't have even had Might as a stat, or gone to great lengths to ensure that people understood the Might attribute has **** all to do with physical strength (even though in interactions it's virtually only ever used as raw physical strength...) notice, i said bulk, as in body mass. not muscle. bulk doesn't equal muscle. that was my statement. though, somehow what you must have heard is muscle doesn't equal muscle. does that even make any sense to anyone? as it surely doesn't to me. I'm not interested in arguing about you using intentionally vague terms so you don't have to admit flaws in your argument.

It's not a problem. Who said it was a problem?

The problem with restricting resting to inns is that it doesn't really make it any different. Sure, there's a real-world time cost as you go through loading screens, sailing animations, etc - but there's no in-game cost to any of it (oh, fine, a few coppers - but who cares?) I don't think it's possible to make resting a meaningful decision in Deadfire without reworking whole sections of the game rules, which is why I advocate just tossing the whole thing out and pretending it wasn't there to begin with. Pillars had the same, exact problem - sure, you were artificially limited on how often you could rest without enduring loading screens via camping supplies, but there was absolutely nothing stopping you from ****ing off to Caed Nua for a nap, then returning to pick up where you left off... so resting was meaningless as a gameplay fixture and was pointlessly tedious. Pillars did FORCE you to rest via the Health system being an effective cap on how far you could go before resting, but I don't think that made the game any harder, just tedious.

What's so hard to believe that men and women are physically the same despite looking different in a world where you can summon a big ass dragon out of no where just by singing songs? Real world physics rules was never important in any fantasy world, otherwise it won't be called fantasy. Actually, even with soul power being the explanation for all the overtly supernatual abilities of characters in Eora, women would still be less physically capable than men because their bodies are smaller and limbs shorter - assuming you have, like, a male Nappa and a female Nappa, their power level being the same doesn't matter. The male Nappa has longer limbs and can therefore exert more total force (due to leverage given via the longer limbs) than the female Nappa even though they both have... what was Nappa's power level, again? There's literally no way you can explain this away in fluff without explicitly stating that Eora does not have the same physical laws as the real world does, because at least as far as physical feats go (moving really fast, being really strong, etc) it's quite clear that they still operate on real-world physical principles. Maybe the guidebook goes into this, I don't have it. I'd think that fundamental differences in physics in the real world and Eora would bear mentioning in-game, though. Admittedly this is splitting hairs, but I hope it serves to illustrate the point - you can't have sexual dimorphism and say that the physical capabilities of the smaller creature are equal to the physical capabilities of the larger creature, assuming all other variables are equal (they both have a power level of 9000, etc.) SJW went from being a mark of pride to being a derogatory term not just because of Gamergate, but because a minority of people using that term to describe themselves had a tendency to take things a little too far. It's essentially the left-leaning version of the alt-right phenomenon and kind of ties into the horseshoe concept, since these descriptors are generally political as much as they are ethical (you probably won't see proto-fascists in left-leaning political circles, and an SJW would probably find themselves ostracized in a far-right political group, etc.) > you can't have sexual dimorphism and say that the physical capabilities of the smaller creature are equal to the physical capabilities of the larger creature, assuming all other variables are equal You can if you don't think it's really crucial to have, for example, a strength malus to females and a bonus to males, in your game. If it serves some gameplay purpose that isn't irrelevant or trivial, or if it plays an important part of immersion or some other role-playing aspect, then it could be more important. But to say that you can't have sexually dimorphic species while simultaneously having no difference mechanically between males and females.... Why can't you? What harm does it cause? Personally I would consider it absolutely fine for males and females to have different attribute penalties/bonuses, but I don't see it as being so important that it's going to affect my enjoyment of the game, in the same way as it doesn't really bother me that the game doesn't have realistic bacterial infection mechanics, as per the example I gave earlier in the thread. It's just not that important to the game. It doesn't enrich the game to have these male/female differences. I'm not recommending there be gameplay differences, because it's just fluff and not even IMPORTANT fluff. There's a reason -4 Str has become a meme that's generally used as an aesop for game designers dumb or crazy enough to want to make genders arbitrarily different in crunch because reasons. I'm just pointing out that even if we say actual muscle size doesn't matter because Eora operates on an esoteric/supernatural soul power concept, that doesn't mean that limb length etc isn't relevant and I haven't seen anything in-game or quoted from an Obsidian source (guidebook, interviews, etc) that indicates that soul power or radically different physical laws account for that discrepancy. In real world terms, muscle strength is directly correlated with muscle size - the literal length of muscle fibers, the density of those fibers, etc. In terms of other settings, it's why dwarves either have a Strength bonus compared to humans, or why they're able to ignore the weight of armor that slows humans down (basically "they're strong for their size" in a different gameplay representation.) That doesn't necessarily matter in Eora because of the soul power concept, but it does make me wonder why Dwarves and Amaua are apparently much stronger-willed (or however "soul power" is represented) than the other kith races, and why Orlans are weaker-willed while simultaneously stronger-willed compared to other kith. Shortest answer is that they probably shouldn't have even had Might as a stat, or gone to great lengths to ensure that people understood the Might attribute has **** all to do with physical strength (even though in interactions it's virtually only ever used as raw physical strength...)