Monte Carlo

No. You might upset the wimmin.

* shrugs * I just want the stats to do stuff you expect them to do. I'm taking quite a lot of flak for the heresy of pointing out that it's not very intuitive to have a fighter for whom intelligence is more important than strength (for example). Guys, listen in - the emperor is naked. I know many of you will find this shocking but there it is. This stat system is FUBAR. None of the infinity engine games had this stat algebra going on where you have to second guess which stat does what, along with grazes and deflection. Simple doesn't have to be stupid. In fact not simple, elegant. This system isn't elegant. It's obtuse. Furthermore, the idea that I suddenly have to understand MMO tropes (damage dealer / dps / tank) when playing a game marketed as an Infinity Engine tribute is another slap in the face. If I make a fighter I expect a durable combatant whom I can tweak within the class. Nothing more and nothing less. At the moment the character-building system in poE is like a complex joke only Josh and a few of his admirers seem to understand. The shills on this forum who dig it might be happy but trust me the rest of the gaming population are about to brew up a big cauldron of WTF once this hits the streets. Happily, it's not too late to change it.

Anita is just the 21st Century version of Jack Chick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_T._Chick). Jack had religion, Anita has feminism. Those evil games are pushing people off the path of righteousness and must be controlled! Seriously, consider the tactical similarities between SJWs and looney-tune Christian fundies. They are legion.

Here's how it was supposed to work: "Yeah, the way we display the non-verbose final roll is always relative to the standard ranges: Miss on <=5, Graze on 6-50, Hit on 51-95, Crit on >=96. Defense is subtracted from Accuracy and then applied as a modifier to the roll itself. E.g. the attacker has 52 Accuracy and the defender has 30 Defense. The difference is 22. Three attacks happen in sequence. The actual rolls are 65, 43, and 84. Those are modified to 85 (Hit), 65 (Hit), and 106 (Crit). There are two exceptions to this: a natural roll of <=5 can never be better than a Graze and a natural roll of >=96 can never be worse than a Hit, no matter how much the table gets skewed." So says Josh. So since dex increases accuracy (with various modifiers), and Int increases threat range (with some limitations I think), it always was possible to create a fighter without MAX-MIN stats, who still do fairly high and consistent damage. Because of the accuracy bonus (and high attack roll bonuses), he would convert hits that would have been misses into grazes and hits. And there's be a generous amount of criticals as well. In difficult fights against quick high def targets, that fighter (with similar, but not identical strengths as the rogue) would likely be one of the main damage dealers. OMG the system is BORKERN!! because might can be dropped!!! Against heavy DT targets, however, things get more difficult. Because now all those grazes and hits never do any damage at all. Only the crits actually do any damage for the elf running around swatting the Orc with a sword. And a high might stat, or something that bypasses armor, becomes critical. And OMG!!! THE SYSTEM IS BROOOOKKKKEEBNNNN!!!!! Because now only Might works. Btw, now you suddenly you see the appeal of the barbarian as well, who can temp between the two roles at the cost of defense and other interrupt-based abilities the fighter is extremely well suited for. So that's just the attacks of the fighter builds, while ignoring the defenses for a while. Which is equally interesting. And that's how one class can encompass several completely different types of builds, that pass into the territory of the other classes, and vice versa. ----- The question is what exactly, if anything, was actually changed this time around. It is this: Perception became Accuracy, and defense bonuses became "deflection", governed by Intellect. Resistance became the governing stat for duration, rather than Int. And what has happened with the rest? Does perception still govern chance to cause interrupts? Does defense bonuses (that used to come from dex) still improve your chances to overcome your resistance checks for interrupts against you? We don't know, because now apparently defense comes from intelligence and perception, rather than dexterity and constitution. What have you accomplished then, you bastards? You have switched around existing values so that the intuitive synergies between might, dexterity, intelligence and perception makes more mattthemattical sense, if you know absolutely nothing about the mechanics underneath, and couldn't care less about roleplaying a character before POURING OVER THE ENTIRE STAT SHEET for hours. And in return, you can now make a kind of character who is for example extremely perceptive and intelligent, and choose a class that offsets the penalties form dumping all the other stats. You can make a dwarf fighter who is hardy and crafty. And because he's a good mechanic, he can also dodge bullets. I'll tell you what you've accomplished. You've managed to accomplish nothing whatsoever except making the system more unintuitive and more difficult to play into. And you've removed the probability that I'll ever really enjoy the fighting and the mechanics of the game again. It'll be the dialogue, and **** the rest. That's what you've accomplished. So thank you so ****ing much, **** ****ing superfans. That's the last I'll say about this. **** you. But it is. By definition, as per your subjective feeling? Or is it more of a group and a PR thing, where the system isn't working unless a majority of the entire group somehow seems to like it at the same time. Go to hell. Seriously, what the **** are you guys even doing around here? What do you want? Ha ha ha his rage tastes like sweet butter. All I want is an intuitive stats system that makes some sense.

It probably explains the pissy tone of your post, yes. I think you should understand what you are talking about before arguing with others. Hey, thanks for the advice, Sparky.

But it is.

Troll? Ha ha ha the guy has a gold badge. He's sunk a fair few Benjamins into this project. As far as I'm concerned, he's got the right to say what he wants.

It probably explains the pissy tone of your post, yes.

^ Wow, did he move your cheese?

Might is for damage. Strength didn't make a good tank in D&D as well except minimum strength needed for some armour. STR = Thaco and damage. Puh-leez. And how does thaco and damage help you tank?Strength is dps stat. Con and Dex are tank stats. I'm talking about D&D not some half-arsed MMO.

...and obviously desperate to impress Anita so she'll go out with him

It's really very simple. I made a high Might / Con two-handed paladin and barbarian. Both were crap in combat. I made a high dex fighter with crap strength who was great in combat. The stat value imbalance seems out of kilter.

Lovecraft. Bejaysus it's hard work.

My point is that my might fighter died quickly. So whats the point?

Make a Fighter with high CON / INT / and maybe Resolve (optional) ....and that's what pisses me off. It's horsesh*t that a high intelligence fighter is a better tank that a high might one. It's just perverse for the sake of it. http://imgur.com/m5T4JYK That's all very well, and indeed mildly amusing. But... Sawyer said there were lots of viable builds and no dump stats. You couldn't make a gimped character, right? Now, in the name of all that is holy, you can make a brain-fighter but not a muscle fighter. I know Sawyer isn't that enamoured of fantasy RPGs as a genre, but this is a cosmic piss-take too far.

Might is for damage. Strength didn't make a good tank in D&D as well except minimum strength needed for some armour. STR = Thaco and damage. Puh-leez.

Sorry to go O/T but Hawking is my personal Chuck Norris.

Make a Fighter with high CON / INT / and maybe Resolve (optional) ....and that's what pisses me off. It's horsesh*t that a high intelligence fighter is a better tank that a high might one. It's just perverse for the sake of it.

^ I completely agree lickety.

I only started following it properly once it bled out into media that wouldn't usually cover it. Initially I was sort of, "meh" about it because the protagonists are so much younger than me and dealing with it in a way I find pretty strange. Then I read the article I linked and realised - the tactics described really are familiar to me in other fields. And I was tickled by the idea of childish, bickering, silly gamers actually being 'The Helm's Deep of Freedom of Expression.'

Actually Hurlie I was out of order back there and I apologize. As for the ongoing argument - there is nothing wrong with Anita or anyone else pointing out perceived cultural flaws and biases in games or any other cultural medium. And to be fair to Anita, she's pretty upfront about where she's coming from and what you see is what you get. OTOH what I'm talking about is something more invidious. One person's 'inclusiveness' is another's nightmare. The SJW crowd really do think their way is the only way. It's a type of intellectual arrogance. I know writers and academics on the political left, the warm fuzzy kind. They really would ban things. For your own good. Because they know best. Edit - exclusivity changed to inclusiveness

Hmmm. Just made an average (12) Might but high Dex / Con Orlan fighter and am a tiny, turbo-charged killing machine (sabre / stiletto dual wield). So that's the light-fighter squared away. How do you build a decent tank?

And there you go. A perfect example of a liberal / relativist switcheroo in action. The kids see marriage all around them. Heaven forfend, some of their parents might even be married! At that point in time gay marriage was (a) rare and (b) not even legal in many countries. Of course the status quo is political (and as Marx insists) everything is political. And so you can safely compare marriage to a plunger or a goldfish. All that is solid melts into air. And you are trusted with tender minds? So if a game depicts stuff in accordance with your worldview, it's just the way things should be, but if others complain that it doesn't fit their worldview, they're horrible political people? No, not at all. But if a game doesn't represent 'x' 'y' or 'z' (if one of those represents some subject concerning gender or sexuality or whatever) does it have to mean something (usually pejorative)? I'd argue not. People are free to create whatever they like. Create a Gay dating or parenting sim. I couldn't care less. In fact, the last thing I'd do is wonder aloud why 'a' 'b' or 'c' wasn't in it. And, therein, lies the difference between people like me and Social Justice Warriors. Of course, it is an interesting feature of Western civilization that people can spend many years in ivy-swathed cloisters scribbling theses about how that makes me some sort of blinkered conservative trying to perpetuate their injustice of choice. That's their problem, not mine.

I'm knid of ambivalent about the layout / culture aspect but I like Matt's inventory idea.

And there you go. A perfect example of a liberal / relativist switcheroo in action. The kids see marriage all around them. Heaven forfend, some of their parents might even be married! At that point in time gay marriage was (a) rare and (b) not even legal in many countries. Of course the status quo is political (and as Marx insists) everything is political. And so you can safely compare marriage to a plunger or a goldfish. All that is solid melts into air. And you are trusted with tender minds?