Adhin

It doesn't govern how much a spell can do. 'Might' increases just how much 'stuff does'. That's just represented as damage and healing total, which... isn't really 'healing'. It's just gaining stamina back mid combat. Your health can't be healed via potions or spells. Also, in DnD, that is to say all the IE games, INT never increased spell damage... of any kind.

Yeah I could see health functioning a lot like (health, not stamina) functioning a lot more like how they're doing skill. There's the base value then a class bonus. I could see stamina having a larger disparity between classes, but that could also just be handled the same way. Hell I'd be happy if everyones starting health was the same and just the stamina was the class dependent bonus. I mean say everyone has 50 base, fighter gets +20 stamina, barb gets +30 stamina, everyone gets the same hp/stamina (equal) per lvl and from attribute. Ultimately the Fighter tank being in full plate vs the mage not (in this situation) and having some talents that improve his 'use' of the armor (so having an effective higher DT) would ultimately result in less HP and SP loss. That right there is what you call 'EHP', Effective Health Points, or stamina points in PoE case as well. Now, looking at there current test-screen shot thingy looks like HP/SP is % based. Which ultimately means it's a per-lvl style (least in there GUI test, that was photoshopped I think Sawyer said). I don't think that'll be to big of an issue if they stick with it being % based as long as the base value vs what you gain per lvl isn't to... drastic. Though it would still make Constitution more character level dependent then a base physical trait bonus. Hoping they reconsider that. Oh and another 'fun' example of insanity. In a PW I played in NWN, I had a Barb/Psion (still my favorite char I've played in any RPG to date). That game used 'random' hp rolls, but wouldn't go below half point so it was really a 6-12, instead of a 1-12 (srsly gaining 1 HP on a lvl...just..bleh). Anyway, he had about 800HP I believe, but his 'max potential' was 880. In a rage he would gain an extra 120, putting him at 920. I forget the buff but there was another method to get his con up higher and over 1k total HP with rage going. Now THAT is a massive disparity, going from that lvl 1's 18 hp to 900+ heh. Oh and a base natural 14/- DR with +10/- DR bracers... tanky son of a monkey right there.

Yeah, pretty sure the bulk of health will be level based, hoping they don't use the DnD style of hp-per-lvl from attributes. That is where DnD gets wildly out of hand. You start with little to no health then that doubles at lvl 2, then just keeps going, con adds a small amount... per lvl. That's probably my biggest complaint with how DnD handles anything is its HP. I'd prefer a larger starting pool of health at lvl 1 with a smaller gain per lvl (static gain, based off class) with static, unchanging health points per attribute. For instance, instead of a Fighter starting with 10 hp then gaining 1-10 per lvl (or just halving 10 or going with a max value for the sake of it being less stupid) and then throwing per-lvl +1 per 2 con. Something more like starting with 50 health at lvl 1 and gaining 5 health, per level, with +5 health per vitality. At 18 vitality that'd be +80 hp that never changes, would make battles at early lvls less awkward and that shift wouldn't change as much as you level up. Like, take a maxed Con barb, no items lvl 1, that's 16 hp at lvl 1. if its a max roll (or you just ignore rolling) at lvl 20, all points in Con (cause of rage) your looking at 360 hp. 16, to 360. I mean I like growth and all but that's kinda crazy. If you do a more static approach like above, that'd be 60 base +80, so 140 base hp at lvl 1 for the Barb, and 239 at level 20 with the 23 Con. That's not quite double the HP for all those level, little more of a slow burn. That's kinda how im hoping PoE is. Anyway, Concentration is on Con in DnD (as a skill for the same general effect) so you can easily argue for it but I definitely like it on resolve more. And I did consider attack speed but, like crit-range i felt it was a bit to overpowered but I guess for different reasons. If Concentration/Interrupt works the way I think it does (and it very well may not) then attack speed increase would be a more powerful version of concentration in most situations. On top of that its a rather large force multiplier much like a massive crit-range. Basically, I think attack speed is best left up to short duration buffs via an array of skills instead of being something you can pump up. If it's something you can pump it would have to be a percentage to keep it even-ended on DPS output across all weapons. This gives it the largest obvious benefit to slower weapons which cuts away more at there speed then it does with fast weapons. Ultimately it brings them closer together and starts to nullify some of the major differences (if that's even in, I guess, 3E doesn't even use it the same way). Was kinda thinking of Duration on Con, could always come up with some reason for that... could really come up with a silly reason with Duration for any of them really. It's an insanely abstract effect that has no real ties to any attribute. AoE less so as I can more easily see INT having the most 'right' to effect it. As much as I like the idea of HP and SP being separated I think the list I just put up has less issues then some others I had in mind.

Been wanting to just think up a list of stats to have effected in general, based off what they've said so far just to see how many in total there are (that I can come up with, anyone). So.. yeah im gonna just list here and see what I come up with, oh and ignoring defenses since that's an obvious unchanging one atm.+6 -Current ones from update 70- Effect Magnitude (damage/healing) AoE size duration Accuracy Interrupt Concentration Penetration (guess this ones for bypassing armor?) Health Stamina ---------------- Crit-Damage Combat movement speed That's... about all I can think of that wouldn't be extremely overpowered such as crit-range. So let's see... Mig: Damage / Healing Con: Health / Stamina Dex: Accuracy / Movement Speed Per: Penetration / Interrupt Int: AoE / Crit-Damage Res: Concentration / Duration Part of me wants to split up stamina from health and throw it in resolve but I can't think of what would fit Con outside of combat movement but that should definitely be on dex. Anyway, yeah that's best I can come up with which is pretty much what you had Ganrich, but movement speed on Dex, and crit-dmg. Keep in mind, Duration and AoE are both offensive and defensive, they're ultimately utility attributes that just happen to effect damage related stuff half the time.

I think that may only work against foes who aren't activately 'engaged' with something. Example, Fighter in defensive stance is taking on 3 enemies, and a barbarian is taking on 3 and your 'rogue' runs past the group (close enough for engagement) to try to get into a flank. Running to the fighter I think wont incur the engagement penalty because the fighters currently tying up all 3. The barbarian though is only tying up 1 of the 3, so the other 2 are 'free' to force an engagement on the rogue trying to run past to get behind. ...But that all aside it's pretty damn close to an AoO, well it is, it just has more rules and systems tied to it, and has no effect on anyone casting a spell in melee range. AoO in DnD can effect so many things it's kind of silly (but makes sense in that game, for the most part). -edit- Ahh when I said actively engaged I meant weren't currently tied up via the other combatant. Think that was apparent in my example but wanted to try to avoid any confusion with how I worded it. Barb example was only engaging against 1 enemy, even if 3 where 'attacking' him, 2 aren't tied up or in a full engagement state so they're free to run off and engage something else with out incurring any penalty, since the barbs tied up with his current target he can't take that AoO-like attack on them. That's the big benefit of the Fighter really, it's what his main role is.

Yeah, I agree. Issue's finding 2 stat per attribute that actually fits. I honestly don't think they 'have' enough things for that. Talking about purely passive things that have either 0 basis on skill uses or have a universal effect such as AoE. I think that's one of the biggest issues folks have been running into with the ideas around here, also why i think while it's a good idea it's not one anyone should tie them selves too. As a side note, if resolve works like I was saying above (slows down, not completely stop outside of the rare occasion) then It's both a damage and reactive attribute all in 1. I mean, less useful to the rogue who doesn't get hit to often, but still useful when the situation arises, but would benefit a skirmisher like a Barb who maybe going some one on one or 2 on-one battles while fighters tie up some others. Oh, which reminds me, Ganrich, instead of skill points (since I think that would screw up there no-attribute giving skill points system to much since its.. the opposite of that) Crit Damage isn't anywhere and would fit Int just fine. or... some other attribute as an offensive one. I'd DEFINITELY never want it on DEX, however due to how defenses and accuracy works. Dexterity already governs chance to hit and by extension how often you crit, throwing crit dmg on that would be crazy talk. Getting 2 unique effects that don't contradict anything on all 6 attributes is a hell of a puzzle.

That is a good question, and something I'd like addressed way more then how many or the shape/placement of circles heh.

Heh, stamina on dexterity, thats... that makes no sense. As to the resolve thing, I have a feeling it wont be binary like it 'seems' to be. I mean, nothing in this game so far is, and they've gone out of their way to avoid it being such an on/off switch. That said, I don't think there will be such a thing as a 'stun lock'. Good chance it'll function like any other defense in the end and have varying degrees of success, most of which just 'slow' you down instead of 'stop' you dead in your tracks. I could see a 'crit-analog' for the concentration check resulting in a complete nullification of what your doing in the moment. I just don't think a complete 100% lock down scenario makes sense for the way they've been doing things. Which ultimately means it'll end up probably being more of a slow down of your characters damage output then a full-stop with low resolve. Also, I don't think they're going to ever attach skill points to attributes. That is right up there with the way they're handling total skill point totals for 'cross class' stuff in DnD terms. That being, there are no 'cross class' just a class flat bonus. Adding total skill points to an attribute would create another massive gap. And AoO aren't in the game the way they are in DnD. It's more of if you attempt to disengage by just 'running past' an enemy (its part of there lock down or sticky system thing) the attacker gets a free attack on you. It's a bit similar but it's more designed to keep enemies 'attached' to melee to allow for a proper defensive line (Fighters get a defensive stance allowing them to 'tie up' 3 enemies instead of the base 1). This also means casting a spell wont provoke an AoO, just normal attacks and a spells cast time giving ample opportunity for concentration checks. Which may just extend the cast time instead of just fully interrupt it but it may also do that (like I was saying above). Last thing I'll mention is to keep in mind that ALL attributes have a 'reactive' component, or defensive really. Might and Con effect your Fortitude defense, Dex and Per effect Reflexes and Int/res for Psyche. I get the desire to want each attribute to do 2 things one offense and one defensive but getting bogged down with that as your theme can ultimately end up making a system that just makes no sense what so ever. Like adding physical damage to int or 'stamina' to dex. Don't get me wrong I don't think there current setups perfect by any means, I just don't think your current proposed list fits. -edit- @Lephys: Yeah, though in that scenario those damage dealers can just switch to maces and be as effective as they'd be normally. Or well, as effective as anyone would be. I agree this game looks to have a lot more dynamic scenarios for tactical play and that's fantastic. But I think it's a tad naive that people won't make pure damage characters just because of that wider range of tactical play. As an example to what im talking about, I've seen people carry around multiple sets of armor and weapons in games with OUT this level of detail because in specific instances it would increase they're overall potential in some dungeon by a small 5% increase. That's the level of insanity we're talking about here. I think for the vast majority of people resolve will be a useful portion of there considerations. But that guy turning his rogue into the highest damage dealing character he can while he lets his party do the 'rest of it'... yeah hes gonna dump con and resolve like its a potato made of lava. Granted, theres nothing anyone can do about that. If you where to change Resolve so it had a super important offensive thing then it just means said dmg spazzing wackjobs would do nothing but max resolve then. It's how it works, you either max it or you ignore it. I think considering those extremes are semi-pointless. In the end, the best way to combat that? Is to ensure the difference between 0 and 100% is minor. That's probably the biggest difference in most other games then straight DnD or PoE... the difference in damage potential. I mean in Diablo, as a quick example (well D2) you go from throwin' out 2-6 dmg at lvl 1, to something more like 7k 'average' at lvl 60. That's bull****, absurd bull****. PoE wont have that, it'll be smaller varients, and dumping or mostly ignoring a stat wont screw you over, and maxing wont give you a massive benefit (hopefully). Skill use and position should be more important then your attribute placement. Attributes is where the RP comes in and is a nice, thin layer of delicious frosting on the tactical cake... or hopefully it is, hate those inch thick nasty fake frosting cakes, bleh.

Your attack range may actually exceed your detection if you have sneak up high enough. Though the 'Sneak Attack' is a 3E rename from backstab. For PoE it's a 'flanking' which just requires a friendly attacking the target 'from the other side'. Which I think means even if the enemy is attacking the rogue, just having an ally on the flank will give you the bonus. Hoping anyway. -edit- Oh just forgot, also Rogue's get an ability that turn them 'truly invisible' so... if there is a difference between a 'Sneak Attack' and a Flanking bonuses then that's probably how they can set it up, in the middle of combat or otherwise.

Mmkay, this whole mouse-wheel thing with reducing the effective radius or cone of effect. Sounds. Great. Really like the idea of being able to fine-tune that, though I'd say there should definitely be a minimal that may or may not be the base radius before INT is taken into account. Would make INT much more flexible on that stuff.

Yeah a moving 'zone' for enemies when they walk would make some sense, not to far of course but... still. Would only really account for visual though at that point. To say someone on alert is only focusing on stuff 'ahead' of them with both their sight 'and' hearing is practically an impossibility. We can't really focus are ears to ignore stuff making noise behind us. And they are already simplifying it all to a single sneak skill check instead of movement + the act of physically hiding against spot and listen like in DnD. I mean the circle is already two staged too. If your circle gets inside there outer zone of they're detection circle they become alerted to something. They heard something or think they saw some kind of movement. This causes them to move toward that point and if you don't get away in time and your circle enters they're inner circle zone the rouse is up and your detected. Basically I'm saying they would have to split up and complicate the sneak mechanics before they have a real good reason to mess with this circle idea they got going. And for an IE-style game? This is a hell of a stealth system. Quite frankly I prefer it to even the base 3E style as it's more of a 'game' then just some non-stop dice rolls till the opposition gets lucky and rolls a 20. I know 20 isn't an instant win for stealth mechanics (least not in NWN) but untill you completely blew past their max check it kinda was more a game on 'when' you'd get spotted, not 'if' you'd get spotted. Anyway outside of splitting up the skills for visual and auditory parts of detection 'and' sneaking I think the way they're handling the stationary circles will provide the best game play results. Anything else is adding a complexity to a base system that lacks the mechanics to support it. A Visual cone is pointless on the grounds there is no skill that governs your ability to 'spot' someone hiding, or the verse not being able to 'hear' someone. It's all 1 check. So that circles both your visual and auditory detection zone.

Yeah no worries, It is one of the most common methods for handling crit chance (DnD being some awkward outlier.. sort of). I feel like I've been to much off topic with non-direct attribute stuff so imma go ahead and just mention the one point someone said about making might act differently depending on class. I think things done on a per-class basis is kind of interesting, but not when it comes to attributes. They are meant to be a representation of a global expected physical trait (yes im consider intelligence as a physical trait in this case, all be it a more abstract 'well your brains physical thing' kinda... way). I'd rather Might just be a representation of your 'effective strength' (adjusted by general 'size' (or well, height/size category) instead of just super-muscle man. I mean you got body builders which look super crazy buff... but then you have the strong men competition guys who actually lift and perform absurd feats of strength that body builders don't really train for. Plus you know military training and martial arts is more about your 'effective strength' then your actual physical appearance. Anyway, point is, if you have a lot of might I expect your character to win in arm wrestling, being able to bash open doors or push boulders around not just manage it via magic cause your a mage. I mean if your a 'mage' and you could manage it with a spell then might should have little effect on that, other then maybe how effectively you moved it. See Lephys example of leverage. 10 Might vs 18 might, both could move the boulder with leverage, the 18 might just wouldn't need as long of a stick. That and I doubt priests have special boulder-lifting miracles.

Yeah I'm hoping for either NWN2 numbers of options or a straight up RGB sliders. Though having a few color 'pallets' and letting with a dark/brightness slider to add variation to the 'accepted' colors for any given race would be a nice touch. Lotta options while keeping it all make sense.

It applies to all defense/attack types yeah. It's even a determining factor in how offensive debuff style stuff effects things. That is to say there is a 'glancing' effect if you where to hit someone with a poison spell, lets say. If you roll low against there fortitude it'll still 'effect' them but at a heavily reduced duration, where as a high roll, or crit would give a duration boost. The whole point of it is to normalize stuff a bit more from the basic on/off switch most of these things are in DnD. I mean generally the spell either effects, or fails to effect and that's that. They want there to be more variation with less complete and total failures. So if your throwing a Fireball in my above even ended example that fireball has the same overall range but it would be going up against reflex. So 5% chance you miss and they completely avoid the spell, 45% chance they avoid a good bit of it and its a glance, 45% chance you hit and a 5% chance it hit with extra intensity. That's kinda how these attributes effect 'everything' for every class equally. Playing a super dexterous mage is a very real thing even when your talking about just casting spells. As for which update its in? That's harder, I mean this was the 70th one... I can do a search see if I can find it. It's actually in 2 updates that I know of, first one was the initial iteration of it which didn't include missing at all. Was a 50% glance, 45% hit and 5% crit or maybe it was 50/40/10 or whatever. Either way after weeks of discussion few updates later Sawyer went into explaining the updated version with the miss chance and how it effects all the defenses and whatnot. Ahh just remembered the wiki probably has the information so checked on that, here's the WIKI entry that details it out - http://eternity.gamepedia.com/Attack_Resolution -edit- And that wiki page had the update number! - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63207-update-39-non-core-classes-cooldowns-attack-resolution-damage-vs-armor-and-a-tileset/ Oh and I can't remember where, but Sawyer mentioned they're no longer doing a 'max/min damage for the -50% or +50% (glance/crits) it's now the normal damage ranges with the 50% penalty or bonus. I kind of liked the max/min base thing for the increase/decrease effect but with the way things slide, you could end up with a lot of grazes or a lot of crits and getting no variation in that vs those few enemies with super low or super high defenses could be a bit... boring, or problematic, think that's why its randomized now.

Yeah I think when they say 'area of effect attacks' they specifically mean damage related ones. Fortitude mentioned physical ailments such as disease or poison. If there was an 'Poison Cloud' spell that creates an area of poison, that would most likely be fortitude, not reflex. Or a Mass Charm spell would ultimately be Psyche instead of reflex due to the base nature of the spell. Hell with that said I can bet you single target stuff like a fire bolt would still use reflex as a means to see if you land a hit with it. I could see them tagging on a reflex at the beginning of the spell to see if the character 'dodges out' of the area, which it then moves that character outside the radius of said spell, and anyone who fails it rolls their Psyche to see if they're effected. Or the poison cloud scenario a fort for the poison if they're still in the radius or walk into it after it's been created. Feels a bit complex for the sake of being complex and I don't know if they want to try to add in some kinda 'dodge' graphic or how they'd determine where the character ends up if its a success. Seems like a bit more trouble then it's worth really but would be an interesting twist for that stuff. -edit- Looking over some of that wiki stuff on the classes, Druids got Firebrand. Basically creates a sword made entirely out of fire. Which makes all your melee attacks go for there reflex instead of deflection (its a sword made entirely from fire, no metal so... makes sense, armor aint gonna do much). Also on the Barbarian there is an ability you activate that causes, for a short time (or maybe its a stance? its a bit vague atm, work in progress and all) that changes all your melee attacks to go against a targets Fortitude defense instead of deflection as well. Which is really interesting I think... this games gonna be so much fun. ^.^

@Lephys: I agree with what your saying about resolve and trade offs. But for the sake of argument again with Ganrich, from a min/maxer, they raaareely plan around the oh-**** scenario. I mean they literally don't plan for it. It doesn't exist in the perfect statistical world. Planning for it means taking away from stuff that makes dmg good. I think that's ultimately what hes getting at. My first chars going to be a barb and for RP reasons, there will be resolve. He even has an ability (charge I believe) that lets him ignore all that tied up melee nonsense and practically teleport-fly to his destination of choice for more destruction. But if i was to make an archer and im trying to mix/max things (which is the tendency when anyone dump-stats) resolves.. ehh. It literally has no effect on ANY SKILL, or ANYTHING you do outside of being hit. Hell a lot of min/maxers ignore constitution cause... why do you need health if everythings already dead? I can easily see someone super-focusing roles that way. High Con/Resolve fighters to muck up enemies with super might/accuracy nuker/archers to do most of the damage/dirty work. I mean sure it's all a trade off but that's what min/maxing is about. Trading all the crap that's situational for massive damage output so you can steamroll. I've always been an RP-first, then painstakingly min/max to that RP'ed goal to get it 'just right'... but yeah, resolve will ultimately be a dump stat for a buncha builds (more so then con) if it has no effect on anything else. It's stupid but... munchkins. -edit- LOL because he was boss... damnit Wikipedia...

Nah your not Pipyui, I actually thought that when I saw it too. Its inevitable sadly, even with a disclaimer. In the end it wont matter to much as if/when they get to actual advertising it'll have more awareness due to ads and more polished animations in the trailers. Which im looking forward to. Heh, I mean a lot of those animations where really stilted, like they weren't adding there own frames in between the movement points. Old school quake (Q1 that is) stuff there. Anyway, I just try to think of it as something else for us to look forward to seeing, other people are the internets, and the internets are... yeah.

@ShadySands: Yeah I believe easy has it off by default and I think playing in there survival/iron man whatever they're calling it mode has FF on. I know they have 2 sets of 'modes' that come with a bunch of toggleable stuff which you can set for the actual difficulties as you see fit. So, should be an FF toggle for sure. @Wombat: Heh, yeah for sure, if the radius gets to insane that could prove troublesome if there wasn't a halfway radius friendly split. As for the 3 main non-deflection defenses, hes specifically stated hes aiming to have them all be of equal use. So I'd imagine rather all over the place. Though the way someone builds their specific character could easily focus on one area over the other and the defenses being important to the player has far more to do with the variety and frequency of what enemies use that you run into then what the player has available.

No, my probability skills aren't horribly off you just haven't looked up how they're handling accuracy and crit chance. This isn't a you have a %chance to hit and then a secondary roll for a % chance to crit 'if' you landed a hit. It's a sliding scale. If your accuracy vs their defense are in the equals, with out any talents or what not to muckery up any of it your looking at a 5% chance to straight up miss, 45% chance to 'glance' (that's half damage) a 45% chance to hit for normal damage and a 5% chance to crit. Thats... 5:45:45:5 Alright, now if you where to lets say gain 20% chance accuracy in this same situation your 'chance to hit' still remains 45%, it 'slides it'. Ultimately this means you cannot miss, at all, and your chance to 'glance' is lessened and your crit chance is increased. You would have a 30% chance to glance, a 45% chance to hit and a 25% chance to 'crit', or... 0:30:45:25 So as you can see with this super old information... accuracy, ultimately, results in waay more crit chance as it literally translates to crit chance. It doesn't 'widen' your hit or glance windows it just 'slides the scales' in your favor. Now There has been mention of talents that will 'increase' the hit chance or crit chance windows. I believe a crit chance increase actually eats into your hit chance window. So say you have the base 5:45:45:5 and you got a talent that was +5% crit chance, instead of sliding the scale it would eat into your normal hits I believe for a 5:45:40:10 scenario. It might eat into your glances though im unsure. Anyway if you want to crit a lot, your going to need to focus on dexterity and your general hit chance. Oh and Critical hits are 50% dmg increase (150% total, or x1.5 dmg).

DA games have friendly fire but its sadly tied into the difficulty instead of being a universal toggle. Since I didn't have a computer to play it I was even sadder to find out they consider console gamers giant retards and shifted the FF balance all over the place on consoles. Nightmare only had 50% where as it was 50% for 'normal' diff on PC, and 100% for nightmare. I just don't get why companys feel the need to shift so many things around like that, GUI I get, difference means of interaction and all that but... really. And, IndiraLightFoot, the thing I find most amusing about your example is to increase the cleave radius that idiot barb would have a ton of INT heh. As I mentioned in the confirmed attribute thread though looks like they're thinking about making it so bonus radius from INT (and maybe other sources?) are a non-FF zone. So only the base zone of a spell would have FF in effect which would be kinda an interesting way to handle things. Here's a quote from Sawyer on that topic, it's from the 70th update thread. So definitely gonna have friendly fire, maybe there will be a toggle, and there maybe some double-radius thing with FF and non-FF areas depending on base vs bonus size. I kinda like the idea.

@IndiraLightFoot: Japan physical strength is often linked to spiritual (and by extention magical-like abilities) strength. There is a MASSIVE list of anime out there where a person with a lot of physical strength ultimately results in a strong soul or spirit that allows them to fling bigger and more amazing energy-stuffs that result in massive explosions. Was actually just been watching magi recently, its on its 2nd season currently I think. Anyway, the magi is at a school to learn to not suck at spell casting and one of the first things he has to do is go to what amounts to a training camp (it's like going to basic training in the military, and since you physically can't handle it they throw you into a sub program to strengthen you). Basically he was to weak physically to handle proper basic spell casting, cause he ultimately was to lazy. That changed and all of a sudden he was able to 'handle' the magical energies better. It's actually a common theme in A LOT of fantasy related material. Magic takes a great strain on the body, some worlds have mages physically aging faster due to using magic. It's probably the only reason I don't have an actual problem with a strength-like attribute effecting spell damage in a small way. I kind of like the split between Might and Int where INT is literally more of the thinking mans Wizard. Every spell you have just 'does more'. last longer, has a larger effect (may have a split FF vs non-FF zone for damage effects, allowing for some interesting placement tactically). Where as just a high might results in a bit more dmg, or better restorative effects. ...still think Mights a dumb name though but that's something I can live with. -edit- Oh forgot to mention, the Magi in Magi isn't extremely strong and still isn't after all this. He's still only like 4 feet and super skinny and isn't about to pick up any boulders anytime soon. But he has a lot more stamina, I'd actually say its more of a constitution thing in that animes case then raw physical strength. But I don't think anyone wants to see damage tied to constitution heh.

One of his examples was actually Barbarian's class ability of effecting more then 1 enemy (think its cleave?) would get larger, and I'd imagine a whirlwind would get bigger as well. More recent post he mentioned having spell AoE effects actually have an FF vs non-FF radius based off int. Think his example was 12 radius vs a 16.5 radius fireball. 12 is base, 16.5 is with the wizards INT score. 12 would be a full FF zone, anything in that 12 yards gets hit, anything outside it, up to the 16.5 (so 4.5 radius further out then the 12) would only harm enemies. As much as I think its stupid they renamed it to Might, I think ultimately that's why they did it. Even though 'might' is still going to govern your physical prowess when it comes to the RP side of things. They would definitely have to shuffle things around a bit more if they made Might (or renamed it back to Strength) to effect just physical based stuff and not magic. I mean as I posted before, DnD does not have a single attribute that effects magic dmg. Closest you get is a higher DC check on spells based off said class/attribute but dexterity is already 'doing' that for spells. It's a universal chance to hit boost that effects all defense types. Which I guess kinda brings me to... Might isn't the only stat that's like this. Accuracy is as well. Accuracy is what goes up against the defenses. Dexterity is a universal accuracy bonus for all 4 types of 'accuracy'. If you have a high Dexterity your better at swinging a sword against a deflection bonus 'and' better at getting past someones dodge defense when you fling a fireball at there face. That said, in relation to that screen shot they lack anything to bolster crit damage or crit chance. Crit chance I understand, that's something that can get wildly out of hand, more so when accuracy 'already 'kind of does that with how hit chance functions. I mean +20% chance to hit ultimately will result in a 20% higher crit chance 'if' you already had a chance to crit already against said defenses so... yeah. Crit damage then, no attribute governs that. Wouldn't want it on Dexterity, kinda think it makes more sense on INT but I dunno, anyway that's something else. Anyway, point was - might isn't the only attribute effecting 'all the things' in a catagory, dexterity is as well. Actually, all the stats are, AoE will effect 'all' AoE like stuff, martial or magic, same with duration and whatnot.

@Jarmo: Heh, yeah, that wouldn't make much sense hp or stamina. but on a serious note you really do only heal stamina, not health why I kinda feel like 'heal' stat is semi-misleading but whatever doesn't really matter. As for 'just drop might' that's a no-go. I think they're really set on the 6 attributes thing. Why? Well, each non-deflection defense is based off 2 attributes. Fort, Will, Reflex gain bonuses from 2 of the attributes (that's 6 cause math). Forts = Might/Con, Reflex = Reflex/Perc and Wills (or whatever its called) = Int/Resolve. If you drop Might then you got Fort being governed by 1 attribute all together. And if we add a 7th attribute it.... well it probably wouldn't be apart of that which would mean it would have to do some amazing **** to make it comparable. Come to think of it, the whole Fort/Reflex/will has been kinda ignored (not entirely but mostly) in these discussions. Con gives Health, Stamina 'and' some Fort defense. Which means resolve gives 2 defenses at the moment, concentration and will defense. Anyway that's why I think their pretty stuck on this 6 attribute, can't see them dropping to 5 or 4, they'd have to go to 3 to make it balanced at that point. I could see a 7th stat that does some crazy good stuff to be comparable but I doubt that too. @Jobby: Yeah I'm not a fan of 'Might', not what it does but I just I dunno... might seems like an odd attribute, it's mostly just a rename of Strength because people felt like Strength should govern damage not INT. So they renamed it and then... made it govern damage. Which is kinda already odd in its self, I'd rather it be called Strength and it also effect mage spell dmg then being called might. Not sure why though. I mean I could say I don't think 'might' is an 'attribute' but I don't think perception is either. Perception is a measurement of multiple skill sets which... isn't what attributes are. But I like the name perception so i kinda like it as an attribute. ...guess that makes me racist against Might really. It's Might's fault though, I'm sure of it.

I think the healing one is a bit of a misnomer for us. I mean 'healing' is really more of a second wind, its a quick-magical or otherwise stamina boost. If you where to split them up I agree you'd want health and heal together since they're not directly linked at all (since only way to gain 'health' back is resting). Personally I could see them bringing back inv-slots (or add in a weight system) and tag that to strength and throw stamina on resolve. Though having 2 defensive stats on one attribute that both ultimately do close to the same overall thing in tankyness seems a bit silly. Then again in normal RPG terms having damage and healing on the same stat seems kinda silly so... who knows, depends how they handle all the stamina related stuff. It kind of makes sense when you think about it, Might is basically an intensity modifier at this point, damage or otherwise. Makes the paladin revive-like ability probably more effective, increases the amount of stamina it'll restore on waking someone from being knocked out. Help out priest stamina restorative spells, may even help fighters natural passive stamina regeneration (which is the only class that gets that). Heck in that regard I could see might being more beneficial to a Fighter then Constitution if 'heal' effects the regen. Well, least in the immediate, having crappy health totals would be a big disadvantage for a fighter over the long term so I could still see wanting the constitution to bolster that. And I think I've officially started to ramble here so...yup. I think it's weird but it may work out since 'healing' isn't the standard healing we're used to and all that.

This is why i liked the Might bonus in DnD, it's simple but does a relatively good job of representing a high pull strength bow. Basically it's the modifier that would allow you to use up to a certain amount of your strength to the damage, and if you don't meet the full bonus (3 might would take up to 16 of your str). So say your bow had 3 might and you had 14 strength, you'd get +2 dmg but at a penalty of -1 accuracy for not meeting the full bonus. Kinda like using a 150lb when your not fully accustomed to it, your probably not pulling it back far enough with that 14 str you got. And due to that pull your accuracy wont be as good as it could be. Doubt PoE will have anything like that, but it was a mechanic I always liked in 3E for its simplistic representation for high poundage bows.