Longknife

I have a better list.

Care to elaborate? You yourself posted a photo ranting about how small the influence of INT is on AOE size. That's by no means a "fundamental design issue," that's something that can be fixed by adjusting the int-to-range values. FFS all they have to do is adjust some numbers in a code string, it doesn't even require a new code.

In this sense: Someone made the claim Might is a ~30% increase in damage with min vs. max. For some people that might be considered too little, for others it's fine. Another guy posted a screenshot of what effect INT had on AOE range with min vs. max, and the difference was admittedly pretty negligible. If we crank up the differences and give Might - for example - x1 damage vs. x2 damage, then suddenly the stat begins to feel absolutely vital for damage-dealing classes that sit in the back. Likewise if we make INT's effect on AOE range incredibly noticeable, then AOE capable classes like Barbarians are going to want it. Suddenly we begin to scoff at the idea of a tanky wizard or a stupid barbarian (ironically). But if we were to tone them down instead, then we hit a point where nothing seems to matter. Where you can roll any stat combo and the character will feel more or less the same because the difference between max Might or minimum is nothing but ~10% extra damage. Here people can be whatever they want, but ultimately it's an illusion of variety as the only key difference would be the class choice. I'm not saying it HAS to be a binary choice and the above poster is absolutely correct it's more complex than that; I've suggested INT (and someone else suggested resolve instead) influence casts per rest/encounter. Tacking on extra dimensions to stats is a good way to give them more meaning without actually ramping their numbers up. I'm merely saying there is a degree of binary choice to that question in particular: If I ask you now if you want the stats to carry more weight than they do now (AKA Might maxed = 50% more damage instead of 30%) then that can have an effect on the viability of different builds. My question was more about, which would you rather see the game strive for as it's main concern? Polishing it up and making both possible? Entirely possible, but if time restraints got in the way or the balance proved more difficult, which of the two would you prefer to salvage?

Well my point was more.... The complaint I'm MORE concerned and worried about is the one I just made a thread about: stat meaningfulness vs. character variety and viability. I think a good solution to try and compensate for both is to try and brainstorm additional effects that could be tacked onto attributes to help them carry more weight. AKA, if Might truly is 30% more damage when maxed, we can either discuss tweaks like making it give 60% instead (this has upsides and downsides) or tweaks like assigning new dimensions to the stats. (crit chance increase, spell casts, etc etc) Where exactly it gets assigned, either is fine, but I think more dimensions for attributes would be a smart move overall.

Been seeing this come up in several threads. I must say that I'm personally in the minority with most complaints ("Might is too strong, Resolve is useless") and think they're inaccurate. What I DO consider a valid observation is that stat points may hold less significance than we'd like them to, to the point where maxing out -any- stat is a mere matter of convenience and not one of any significant importance. Realize though that this is a matter of balance. This is, in some ways, a two way street. The less impact stats have, the easier it is for developers to balance the game in such a way that any kind of build of any kind of class can be absolutely viable. Not better or worse, just different. On the other hand, why would we want more variety and all builds to be viable? Replay value. It's a cornerstone of RPGs. We want every new character and every new experience to feel unique. If stats are minimal in importance, then every class will feel more or less exactly the same regardless of attribute allocation. And personally? Personally I must admit that I do enjoy SOME degree of seeing which stats are viable and suited to survive the world and which ones aren't. The degree certainly matters though. For example, compare Fallout New Vegas to Fallout 1 & 2. In Fallout 1 & 2 you'll struggle to find a player who didn't consider INT and Agility to be God-tier; you could survive without them, but that in and of itself was basically a challenge playthrough. If you were looking to survive the hardest difficulty, play dead-is-dead or perform as well as possible on any given playthrough, you would never neglect those two. Comparatively, in New Vegas Luck and Endurance seemed to carry the most weight. However, unlike Fallout 1 & 2, not stacking those stats up did not mean "holy crap this character is so ****ed," but rather it meant you'd notice a difficulty spike, but nothing that wasn't insurmountable. You'd kill slower and die quicker, but the game offered enough approaches and options that if you were smart as a player, you could circumvent those weaknesses quite easily. Take that compared to how crippling low AP or low INT could be in Fallout 1 & 2, and obviously these games had different degrees of stat importance and viability. In my humble opinion, neither of those two can be called "superior" or "inferior," just different tastes. You're more likely to encounter a challenge in the originals while New Vegas offered a bit more variety and experimentation with character types. So that, to me, is important to keep in mind. If you ask for more stat weight, realize that means that a tanky wizard or a strong priest might completely lose it's viability. However, if stats don't hold enough meaning, then we're at risk of every class feeling the same regardless. So I ask you, if given those two options, which do you feel is more important to have: character variety or meaningful stats?

Why not take a lesson from Dark Souls and make INT like Attunement, AKA higher INT = More casts per rest/encounter?

I clicked this thread hoping it was a petition for a Muscle Wizard villain character as an easter egg. :C

How about we give INT = more casts per rest along with the other stats it gives? (Duration feels useful for some characters, AOE is pretty bleh) So like imagine there's a spell you like but you only get 4 casts per rest, and having INT maxed vs. minimized results in 8? It'd hardly be overpowered, but it'd also be a very welcomed convenience.

Good at impregnating women.

Keep in mind this IS the Beta, and somehow I doubt Sawyer was like "ok guys it's REALLY important we've got all the low INT dialog options cleaned up and ready for this first glimpse at our gameplay." But hey we'll see, maybe one of the devs'll swing by and say if the idea was scrapped or not.

Jotting that one down as another combat taunt for the Muscle Wizard easter egg. Obsidian devs are gonna log in the forums and be like "wtf this Longknife beta tester guy sucks. All he does is makes stupid easter egg suggestions all day..."

Stop messing with his head, Junta. Just admit he got scammed and Avellone and Sawyer are infamous swindlers. You shoulda seen their last scam Giubba. Avellone and Sawyer made a really convincing Fallout 3 mod and had the gall to sell it under the guise of it being a new Fallout game! Don't feel bad about falling for this scam though, cause I fell for that last one. Happens to the best of us.

Let's be really lame and just change the name of Might to "Damage."

How about Killibility? Or Murderliness?

EDIT Everything relased before the closure of the kickstarter campaign was nebulos and focused on how the project was based on BG,IWD,Torment. Magicaly the kickstarter campaign end and the detail of the real game start to pop up. Yeah, we all remember that. I'll never forget that moment when Avellone and co stopped singing Don't Stop Believin' for me and suddenly changed their tune to Hallowed Be Thy Name as Obsidian immediately showed their true colors. That's why we're complaining right now, two years later. Because it was immediately clear we were bamboozled the moment they had our money!

And hell I mean we're only addressing how naive and negligent it was to think it'd be a d20 game. We're not even on the point about how "just because it's not a d20 game doesn't mean it can't be good and you're being ridiculous for flipping your desk over this without giving it a shot" yet.

That's him! That's the infamous Muscle Wizard right up there, officer! Arrest him! He shattered my stereotype of typical RPG archetypes!

Ya ya dude you got swindled. Didn't you know Avellone and Sawyer are this nation's 4th or maybe 5th most infamous celebrity outlaw couple? This is a textbook case of one of their infamous scams.

I'm just here cause I love Fallout New Vegas and Chris Avellone sang Don't Stop Believin'.

It's k. /thread

A high-Might wizard sucks at melee. Look at the base melee accuracy. He just sucks a little less than a low-Might wizard. Omfg this is why a Muscle Wizard easter egg legit needs to be a thing. This one, people. This one!!! Yes, there is infact a reason words have more than one meaning. I'm sure if you complain REALLY hard they'll change it's name to "Power Level" and we can all make lame "may-may" jokes about being over 9000.

They actually said they do not have a D&D license and do not want to make a d20 based system in the very beginning. How hilarious and sad would it be if Obsidian's kickstarter wasn't so successful because Obsidian's fanbase is THAT large and THAT loyal, but because the kickstarter page spread like wildfire and somehow everyone interpreted it a different way, with the universal connection being everyone thought "Obsidian's gonna make a game just like from the good old fashioned golden years of gaming," cept everyone had a different interpretation of golden years? Inb4 we got people complaining Pillars of Eternity looks nothing like Goldeneye 64.

Or maybe he's got.... Old World Blues. C WUT I DID THAR?

HAHAHA pathetic Anyone else got this sweet mental image of Giubba pelting his computer screen with his 20-sided dice while playing Planescape: Torment?

It won't be as effective for certain builds. I for example; don't like drawn out battles. As a result I tend to favor offensive attributes with most of my team. If I were to spread my attributes out evenly; my team wouldn't quite play the way I want it to. Just saying that the effect is so minimal, that it hardly makes a difference anyway. Ok seriously your posts that the attribute system is meaningless are all over the forum. Here is a tip, play the game, try out different builds. You might find out that the way you spread out your stat points does really matter. You sound like someone that looked at the system, decided that it sucks and than never even bothered to actually try it. Like your comment that INT is useless, go in the game make a int heavy priest or mage with dots and look how meaningless that attribute is. To be fair, he cited why he thinks INT is useless. It's merely a matter of universal viability vs. stats carrying weight. We want every class to be viable with every build for the sake of replay value, but we don't want to accomplish that by diminishing variance values entirely. It's merely something for Obsidian to think on and possibly find a nice middle ground with. It's easily adjusted by increasing/reducing the influence of a stat point or how many we get, so it's not something that's inheritly flawed with the stats themselves or the system, it's just stat values might need tweaking. How much tweaking is the question.