scrotiemcb

Absolutely not. You cannot hybridize discrete turns with continuous "turns," it's like saying "let's hybridize rational numbers with integers," the result is just one or the other, each of which has totally different design needs.

You might want to check out Malcolm Gladwell on engineering hits:

To even put turn-based and RTwP in the same genre feels like an error to me. From a gameplay perspective, Pillars has more in common with ARPGs like Diablo 2 and Path of Exile than it does with Divinity: OS. There are differences, "with pause" does matter, I'm just saying you don't genre by lore, you genre by gameplay. Hopefully this helps highlight just how poor gameplay in Pillars really is. Story is the only sane reason to keep slogging through. Turn-based is a completely different animal. A huge element of such games is strategizing strong defense for beginnings and ends of turns, while it is okay to be vulnerable mid-turn. This is why feats like Spring Attack and Shot on the Run are so powerful in D&D, but it is a core part of what players are always trying to do, creating footsies battles among combatants (you know, enemy is 50 feet away, both you and enemy have 30 movement, so you only advance 10), from the very beginning. Everything is radically different because of the very nature of condensed, mostly uninterruptable turns.

Au contraire, mon frere. That's not the problem. The reason given was that he was laughably "too short." Also furries. So what we are simulating then is a world where everyone treats women like pieces of meat to be fought over as prizes rather than individuals?

Now that is uncalled for!So when a male wanders in and says female romance options need to be large-breasted supermodels, that's bad... but when a woman wanders in and says male romance options need to look like Eder or they're just too "ewww," that's okay? Sorry. Not doing the double standard thing. Durance is the only gimme "ewww," because I'll grant he doesn't take care of himself.

I dub thee luzaria.

ITT: luzarius unironically suggests incorporating the plot of Shallow Hal into Pillars of Eternity as a romance option.

I think that changing all auras to 3m (like Zealous Charge, currently the other two are 2.5m) would do the trick. 20% more area for those two abilities. I am emphatically against an area doubling, because I do not believe Auras should be full-party buffs at all, but instead more like "subteam" or "splinter group" buffs.

Definitely not that much. I definitely feel that Paladin auras should apply to your back line or your front line, but not both... unless you get two Paladins.

So in conclusion my suggestion earlier is awesome? :3

Which is why it shouldn't be imagined as "Fortitude." It isn't hard to imagine a Might-based saving throw. For example, if something is trying to knock you Prone, it actually makes more sense that a kind of strength would prevent it from happening, as opposed to simply having a lot of health. As I edited my post, Stability is a better word. We'd be going more for the concept of immovability and/or unstoppability than having a good immune system. Health is ALREADY a numeric representation of resistance to damage, to include damage-over-time. So Stability or whatever would apply to avoiding Prone, slogging through Stuck or Hobbled, fighting through Paralysis, or conquering Weakness. It wouldn't make much sense against Sickened, but that's about it. In essense, a Might-based saving throw would be opposite of Reflex. Reflex is about quickly getting out of the way when the enemy wants you to stay still; Stability would be about staying the corse when the enemy wants you out of the way.

Scro, honestly, FORT should be linked to CON. Constitution and Fortitude seem very interrelated to me, and much the same thing. I agree that there is a bit of a "realism" issue with such a system. A lot of this could be fixed with renaming...Fortitude becomes Stability Constitution becomes Vigor Will becomes Logic But as I said earlier in the thread, a game isn't supposed to be a reality simulator. At the end of the day it is the gameplay that matters, and although it feels wonky my system offers more meaningful choice than the present attribute system.

I could make a dump-free system for tanks easily. MIG: +3% damage, +2 fortitude (no healing) CON: +4% health, +5% duration (no endurance, no fortitude) DEX: +3% action speed, +2 reflex PER: +5% range*, +2 deflection (no reflex) INT: +5% area of effect, +2 will (no duration) RES: +4% endurance, +3% healing (no will, no deflection) *12m range on weapons to 10m base (6.5m@3per,15m@20per), 10m range on weapons to 5m base (3.25m@3per,7.5m@20per) The issue is squishies. You can reduce dump by separating duration and AoE, and by penalizing a lack of perception with reduced range, but you can't force squishies to use duration, AoE, and/or ranged abilities.

Is it weird if I'd actually want to see this?No. My favorite thing about this post was that I was able to combine something I sincerely felt with bitter irony.

Why aren't more people simply agreeing with the OP?

It's actually pretty easy to make each attribute relevant to defensive builds. This is because there are normally several offensive vectors, and defensive builds are interested in managing all of them to varying degrees. It is more difficult to make every attribute relevant to offensive builds. There are only so many ways to effect damage globally, and damage-dealers can ignore some specified damage routes to focus on others. In a party-based game, you still get dumps even if you use immunities, because you can have different specializations for different party members, and thus different "carries" in immunity situations. However, I can say without reservation that Eternity's design could have better avoided dump stats in defensive characters. From a defense perspective, Dexterity and Intelligence are both strictly-speaking inferior to Perception and Resolve respectively, and those two are virtually the same attribute, anyway, so the game feels almost like it has 5 attributes but one of the five starts at -4 and can be pumped to 27 (30 if Orlan). Preventing "squishy" offensive dumping is harder, but would be not as important of a point if the game wasn't so tank-and-spank mechanically.

From longtime Magic the Gathering design czar Mark Rosewater: Game design != life design, therefore your argument is invalid. A CCG designer is not an authority on RPG design, so I'd actually say your argument is the one that's invalid. I actually think the biggest issue with PoE's attributes is that they tried to make a system that didn't have dump stats. In trying to fix a problem that didn't actually exist they only made a screwy system that doesn't make much sense. Although he's not a RPG designer, his general game design experience shines through here. A game shouldn't be a reality simulator. Corresponding to reality can be useful at times (it can reduce the learning curve) but what matters to the game is giving players interesting choices and challenges. Realism can and should be bent as necessary.

From longtime Magic the Gathering design czar Mark Rosewater: Game design != life design, therefore your argument is invalid.

PoE actually does have a dump stat problem due to a build-hybridization problem. Unless you are building for solo (which has a wonderfully deep array of build options), the temptation to polarize between either "tank" or "spank" is practically overwhelming due to mechanics-based incentives. Furthermore, although some classes offer decent build hybridization (fighter, cipher), some do not and should get some additional tools. In other words, dump stats are not a microcosm but part of a larger design picture.

I'd just like to add that if POE 2 adds romance, please make sure the female is perpetually clad in a head covering and full-length robe, conservative Islam style, such that she could look either beatiful or mannish but folks like luzarius would never know for sure and would have to actually listen to her words to determine if she was a loveable character to them. But do give her beautiful eyes, thank you. (Not saying Islam is a good or a bad thing. Or that its clothing practices are good. Just referencing the type of garb, let's not derail, thx.)

I do not agree. However, consider the case that a developer does create a system where players are automatically saved from themselves. In such a case, the outcome is undesireable, because player attribute assignment is essentially rendered irrelevant. In order for attribute assignment to have meaning, there must be right and wrong answers. I believe the closest we can get to no dump stats is to have no attributes which are useless to a particular class (in a monoclass game such as this one). Once you further refine that to a specific build of that class, at that point you can have certain attributes be better or worse than others. Then, as players look towards build hybridization, you discover situations where choices between attributes become meaningful and difficult.

Why do you feel it is fine for Cipher and Chanter but no other class?False assumption. I feel the game should have at least 2 and probably 3 per-rest classes, and I also feel the cooldown thing is limited enough that the game only needs 1 "chanter" class, but as far as mana systems go I think one or two more could fit.

Engagement/kiting: 1. What you see as a turn vs RTwP issue, I see as a UI issue instead. Generally, turn-based uses tiling or similar stuff to clearly show "engagement" range, but just imagine a turn-based without such clear indicators. Divinity: OS doesn't have an AoO mechanic but otherwise fits; imagine that game with no added visual indicators for AoOs, but with AoOs nontheless. Now imagine PoE where the red circles around enemies in the UI expanded to clearly indicate engagement range. 2. Kiting was simply hated on. Engagement is overtuned with not just free attacks, but free attacks with more damage and better interrupt. While these things may be fine for specialists (for example, a tank Talent to buff disengagement damage), making them standard was ridiculous. Sawyer wanted kiting impossible and got his foolish wish: movement is weak in combat. Weapon balancing: Disagree with just about everything you wrote. Accuracy from an attribute would be boringly mandatory for all characters. DR penetration has no need to exist when you have the ability to alter your damage type, therefore it shouldn't. That said, armors should have more variable DRs, and enemies should have less all-around DR (perhaps more base health instead). The bias against fast weapons seems to be the result of monster defense design, rather than inherent to the system. Soft counters would be good. No strong feels regarding OP's other points.

Scrotie's law: that which is not controversial requires no internet discussion.

In a general sense, I'm not opposed to these things, either. If I was, I would be arguing for the removal of the Chanter (cooldowns) and Cipher (mana system). I'm not. But what I am opposed to is the removal of per-rest abilities and classes which specialize in per-rest abilities. Those deserve to remain in the game. If you don't like it, play a Chanter or a Cipher instead of trying to give everything the same ability mechanics. Sameness is boring.