Jump to content

Adhin

Members
  • Posts

    459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Adhin

  1. Just for the sake of bull****ting a reason for might to effect guns there Silent Winter, actual physics. One of are currently slowest rounds, .45 ACP is about lets say 900 FPS (depends on the load but 900s a good average for a 45). That is 3 football fields in 1 second. I'm not entirely sure the length of most wheellock's barrels but for arguments sake lets say 20 inchs, im sure some of them where near or at that mark (Barrett's at the 20+ mark). Ok, so, 900 feet per second, that's 10800 inchs per second. That's 10.8 inchs per millisecond. That's pretty fast for one of are slowest moving rounds, amirite? So your looking at slightly less then 2 milliseconds of travel time before that bullets waaay the crap outa that barrel. So, physics wise bullets long gone before the recoils built up enough for the shooter to notice it. But! Here's where the might part comes in... powder load. More powder, bigger the recoil and faster the bullet, more speed = more damage. Now, weaker persons going to stick to less of a load just due to recoil, you don't go big unless you can personally handle it. Granted with guns it mostly just takes some know how and good positioning so your body takes the force but that's where the semi-pretend part comes in. Least that's how ill be thinking about it, even though I don't think guns or xbows should gain a bonus from any stat. Bows I can understand, as you mentioned. It's actually how pull strength works with bows, further back you go, the more pounds of force required to hold/pull it back further. Granted some of that has to do with arm length just to be able to manage that and still shoot the things but whatever heh. Just one of those things we have to deal with for the sake of balance.
  2. @Lephys: Yeah I kinda like the -/+ approach but then you have to come up with some bottom out for the negative side which is one of the reasons I always stick to the base-10 approach when I've ever had to come up with some stuff like this. Nice thing about base 10 is, 10's average, that's easy to understand, and 0 is a death-like-state. Be a little weird if 0 is average. I guess 10 could still be average in that scenario but then whats 0? below average? animal level? If it can go below 0 what's that mean, when does it stop? Also like Fallouts 1-10 approach, 10 being the cap though I feel like the 10 should just be the cap of natural levels and they should (but don't) account for attributes above 10... which just kinda makes augments being pointless if your already there. Which is odd when you think about it, if your 10 strength muscle man and you get strength augments it... has no effect, sorry your muscles are already to amazing, enhanced machinery is nullified by said awesome. Now then as for all this resolve talk, I doubt it'll be that big of a jump. It will help, I'm sure, but there's no way they're going to make you 'need' a massive resolve score to fight effectively front line. They need to make it useful but not mandatory. I mean if an average resolve score results in a fighter being interrupted 'all' the time because hes constantly taking on multiple opponents that's going to make him incredibly useless at his base role which is something they've already stated they're avoiding. You know, each class having a role they excel at regardless of how you build them but your attribute/talent choices let you mold it in 'additional' ways. Additional being the key word, not 'giving up entirely to try to do something else'. And that's enough rambling for me.
  3. @Lephys: I agree, mostly. The only thing I could really throw out as a counter point for the sake of argument or whatever would be that in DnD there is no attribute that makes your spells more damaging. It's entirely left up to feats. For a wizard INT provides 'more spells'. I don't think they're tying 'anything' like that to attributes (but they maybe). That's part of the reason (outside of literally requiring 19 int for 9th lvl spells in 3E) to max out INT is... well, more spells is always better. Anyway in this example of INT is always better your mage will have longer lasting and area effects. Personally I just don't like the word might as an attribute but I kind of like the difference. If you play a pure might based wizard your not hitting as much (or potentially as much), your buffs/debuffs don't last as long but you do more damage. Your fireball is a smaller but more intense flame. The other thing, and I doubt they actually have this set in stone, but there's no negative to there attribute? I mean 10 is 'average'. But that's also 20% dmg in the current example. So say that fireball does 10-30 dmg base, an 'average' strength mage (which are absurdly common in dnd) would be rocking 12-36 dmg base with out pumping strength. Getting it to 18 is just an extra 16%, or 13.6-40.8. That's a 1.6-4.8 difference. That's extremely minor... actually makes me wonder how big of a difference the duration and wider radius will play. In fact they sound SO minor that it seems like the RP side will matter more then the actual math side of things. Which just leads me back to being super bummed at a stat being named Might. Cause its just kinda a ****ty general name for 'stuffs'. Would prefer strength effecting magic dmg then having it renamed to might but in the end it wont matter to much. My Mage's, for the most part, wont be jacking up might anyway. I'm probably gonna focus on INT and Resolve, cause a tiny bit more dmg on a fireball just doesn't matter to me to much. I'm sure there will be talents that are better suited to that.
  4. Nah health and stamina aren't supposed to always be the same. It maybe at base, it maybe based off class, and attributes (and maybe talents or whatever) could effect that balance further. Few of there examples actually involved a mild disparity in max value. Such as 90 health with 105 stamina or the like. Personally im glad they're 'close' but not locked into being identical numbers. It allows you to make someone with great stamina but health ultimately not matching. Like the boxer who doesn't stop till something in his body forcibly gives out and hes can't continue even though he still has the will to fight. To me that's kinda a lower HP total then Stamina total. Could always have the reverse, someone who tires easily but can take a lot of punishment over time. The only thing bonus critical damage could be is effect your multiplier. If they're keeping attributes as a base-10 DnD style with a cap and no major progression past lvl 1 I'd imagine its somewhere around 5% past 10. But we don't know exactly how they're handling stats. Could be more of the 1-10 thing like Fallout, but I'd imagine they're sticking closer to the IE games... but who knows. With ya on wanting more information either way.
  5. Those are some fine points Hamenaglar, definitely agree with it. I'd add I think spells should do the bulk of there damage due to the spell its self not via an attribute (like melee in DnD is nearly 1/3rd driven by attributes). Maybe they should just come up with a general effect each stat does, and leave damage as a per-action thing. Strength still boost health, but it effects most melee weapons in damage to some extent, doesn't have to be huge. I kinda like spells getting a small dmg bonus split between strength and int, though that could also be on a spell by spell basis. Could have a line of body intensive ones or something I dunno. Anyway, good post.
  6. See this is where your problem is. I said, in what you quoted even, I 'think' of when someone mentions Colonial Era is the 1700's America. I don't THINK that's the entire Colonial era, nor did I ever say it. You've decided, for me I may point out, that I think of the 1800 only (which I think of the Oregon trail and subsequently the wild west). So no, I don't think of the '1800s', I think of the 1700 TO the 1800 (not the 1800s them selves). I also point out in that thread that the colonial era is broader then just that but its what I think of. That's the part I take issue with and its the one you keep bringing up. I 'think' of the 1700 America up to the 1800-ish. I don't think of the 1800s. I have not tried to 'weasel' out of what I think about, it hasn't changed, nor have I 'learned' anything that I didn't already know (as I've stated before). I'm sorry but what I 'think' about when someone mentions the colonial era isn't wrong, its a small portion of it and it's just the first to pop into my brain. If you want to keep twisting that, go ahead. All I'm asking, ultimately, is you don't use me as another example. Leave it be, let it go, and most certainly leave me the crap outa anymore of your examples when your arguing with other people.
  7. I'm happy with PoE direction for sure and prefer it over straight turn based. That said as long as the turn based isl ike Temple of Elemental Evil/XCOM: Enemy Unknown/within then im pretty happy with it. The second a 'turn based RPG" removes control over how I develop a character 'and' forces my party to stand in a line against an enemy line while taking turns is about where I draw the line. Can not stress how much I dislike line turn based stuff. Least with ToEE/XCOM you have a full map and positioning is important. ToEE was great for that, had almost the full 3.5E rules in place for stuff. Had rushes, full defensive turns, you could split up your attacks vs multiple enemies. Made turn based worth it, and was never about just tapping the same button to quickly zip through a boring menu to 'attack'... guh.
  8. @PrimeJunta: I know I wasn't going to post in here, again, but PrimeJunta i don't think Colonial age is the '18th c America', I never said that. Nor was I ever trying to get people to think that's the 'era' it was. I said I 'THINK' about the colonization of the AMERICAS and you just felt the need to yell at me like a goddamn madman. It was what I initially thought of, I acknowledged the 1600-1800 wasn't the 'only time period' in that era nor was British and french the only ones colonizing ****. Just please stop mentioning me incorrectly, It's getting aggravating.
  9. That would be counter productive to there goal in making the attributes be useful for everyone and allow for a wide variety of builds in general if they had some heavily limiter based on class. They might as well just make it so mages can't use swords then. Either case I agree with what Lephys saying, again heh. I had a big rambly post and ended up just not posting but the gist of it was I'm leaning more towards them just keeping Strength and Intelligence and adding in Soul or Spirit to the mix, making it 7 attributes. STR effects 'physical stuff' (melee/bows), INT effects crit dmg and Soul effects soul-related power damage. That would be spells, or spell-like abilities Fighters (and fighter-like classes) have that're fueled by your soul (or a ciphers ability to 'effect' souls). Soul could also effect healing then. With that mages would probably want int and soul, certain fighter builds would end up with some soul. Only issue is I just have no idea what defensive properties that would entail. Well I obviously didn't think that out to tell, either way I'd love a soul stat and hope strength only effects physical stuff. Main reason for that is if they just 'move' damage over to strength as a whole you get the 'exact' opposite. If Spells are dependent on damage like melee is and STR is what does it then theres going to be a lot of absurdly strong mages out there. I mean I think you kinda need to do the renaming stuff or split up what effects what damage wise. Maybe spells don't use an attribute for dmg scaling (pure dmg) but still get stuff for crit chance and crit damage and the like. I mean most of the spells wont be effecting directly against Deflection defense from armor, it'll be mind or reflex based so you already kinda have that disparity on that end. Meh I kinda rambled again...
  10. Yeah I agree with ya on that Lephys. I do like the idea of the max-limiter over a fight and all that but think it would fit best with a pure HP approach. On a side note, Dragon's Dogma does that and I love it in that game. Though they make items to abundant and easy to get so while the system 'can' provide a lot of danger and adds to the atmosphere of things you ultimately spend waaay to much time in your inventory heh. Kinda hope they address that in future titles, if they even make another game.
  11. @Lephys: Yup that's kinda what I was thinking. Skills that don't have you hyped up on adrenaline and muscle memory are going to be a lot more difficult when your tired then the 'omg im going to die' stuff. Generally speaking Adrenaline will keep you extremely active and aware regardless of how groggy you where 5 seconds ago. Your not about to complete some complex math puzzle anytime soon but... yeah. Adrenaline's pretty awesome stuff when you need it. -edit- @Osvir: It got you there after 48 hours I think in IE games. Which is about in the realm of 'realistic-ish'. I've stayed up longer then that and didn't start 'really' feeling it (where it hampered my ability to do stuff) till the third day at which point I was basically incapable of functioning worth a damn and promptly passed out. You spatter that with actual rest of 1-2 hours and it becomes a lot easier. In either case 'stamina stamina' like folks are thinking of it is something that comes back quickly and outside of being sick or having some kind of massive injury it shouldn't be a permanent loss. Maybe a penalty to how quicky it comes back after a fight when your fatigued from lack of rest but... that's about it. As far as the decreasing max-cap on stamina, besides what I said in my earlier post, it would actually cause people to rest more often and ignore there health totals. I mean if I only have half my total 'stamina' for a fight - im resting, period. I'm not going to go into that fight with half my stamina with no way to get it back outside of resting. Could also be items or something to 'fix it' but then your in the realm of just back to old IE days of pure HP and chugging potions. That's what this whole system is trying to avoid. Split up health so you rest, ideally, about 4-times as less often (that is, kind of like having x4 the hp as any given IE game). But still limiting how much you have available per-fight so you don't feel invincible in the process. It already keeps us from resting constantly awhile keeping each fight meaningful. I don't see a major down side to what they're doing already or a need to apply more penalties that counter act what its already doing.
  12. You know I don't know why your so damn hostile to what I've been saying. All I've tried to do is point out what I think of when people mention the Colonial Era which just happens to be British/french attire during that era. Yeah world is a lot bigger then that but the colonization of north america was a pretty damn big and important portion of that era. I'd say im sorry for that opinion and that its what I think of but im not. I'm just disappointed its caused a stupid argument over nothing. So that'll be the last I say on that. Still curious if anyone will be waring those crazy wigs. Kinda split on that one, part of me hopes someone is just because I think there so stupid... and by the same token I hope I don't have to look at them cause I think there so... stupid. Guess im happy and disappointed either way.
  13. Hah your right, sleeper hold. Seriously love that movie.
  14. I love that movie, easily one of the best ever. And yeah he does lose that fight, but its mostly him waring him self out then I think he gets knocked out from a rock over the head. Not sure I'd count that as 'out damaged' since he basically beat him self up in the end. But hes a good example of a loveable brute character. Anybody want a peanut?
  15. Yeah, I think the thing to keep in mind with this is each class has something they do 'extremely' well. So, as folks have said if you want a 'Fighter/Mage' you'd want to make a Wizard and then focus them on being able to survive melee confrontation, focus on melee-ish oriented spells and give em some melee weapons. The main reason that mage will never be as good as the 'fighter' in the fighters roll (not in a DnD sense but specifically in PoE sense) is the Fighter is the only class that.. 'stickies' multiple enemies to them. Basically, as I understand it, any class can engage in melee combat with an enemy and it'll 'sticky' that enemy to them making it difficult for that enemy to bypass said character. So a Barbarian or a Paladin (other melee oriented examples) could ultimately tie down 1 enemy each. A Fighter is the only class that excels at blocking, or 'sticking' multiple enemies at a time, allowing them to effectively be a mobile wall. It's what they're 'good' at. It's what they're designed for. So you can make your Fighter/Mage just fine by speccing out your Wizard for melee combat, they'll be about the same as a Fighter/Mage in DnD terms, they'll be able to hold down a single enemy like a Barb or Paladin would. But they'll never be a pure fighter who can hold down multiple enemies like the purebread tank he is. On the other hand you could make a Fighter and give him some more magicy ranged related stuff but he'll never be casting fireballs or any crazy epicy like spells. But he may have some oddball Fighter-oriented Spell-like abilities. Everyone will really, considering everyone uses there soul to fuel powers of some kind. I wouldn't be to surprised if fighters and barbs and the like had the ability to fling low dmg explosive blasts with there weapons like some anime but I also wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't make it in. Not even sure where I stand on wanting that. I know my first chars gonna be a Barb. Like the idea of there charge ability, really want to learn more about how there rage works. Hoping for some update in the coming weeks that sheds some more light on them like we've gotten with monks and whatnot.
  16. @PrimeJunta: If you say so, but the era goes on up to the 19th century, at least. It's been stated before already. And 'Colonial America' is the 1700's. Like I said its where I was born, it's what I learned growing up and its the part of that period I think of when someone says Colonial. It's PART of that Era, so technically im not wrong. It's just a portion of that 'era' not the full thing, but it is the one I think of. Maybe it's not the part you think of as you seem to only think of the 1500-1600s. And hey that's ok. You wanna go ahead and think im wrong for thinking of that part of history as what that word brings up? Go for it, but your wrong about me being wrong. Opinions amirite?
  17. Not wanting to post spam too much (but failing heh)... I really really want a Spirit or Soul stat. Yeah we have a relatively 'strong' soul, but I'd love an attribute to say just how awesome my soul is.
  18. @Silent Winter: I agree on the 'wizard' bit, except that's not how Wizards learn in DnD or in PoE and both require a 'Tome' where they write there spells down (a spell book). They literally have to read and write in there spells language (weather that's native or special like in DnD i Don't know but the point remains). So in another RPG system I can see and agree with but in relation to these 2 it just doesn't fit via the nature of what a "Wizard" means to the worlds. As for Charisma I used to agree, wasn't really sure WHY they would use that for Paladins and Sorcerers or why it was even an attribute, so few years back I decided to look up the word to see if it had some hidden meaning and here's what I got from that. 1: Theology . a divinely conferred gift or power. 2. a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people. It literally means a divine gift (or in sorcerer case an inborn gift from magical blood, divine or otherwise) and a spiritual power or personality giving a great force of presence. I was personally shocked to see how perfectly it fit for what they used it for. Find it amusing how many people (including my self for awhile) thought it was just a 'beauty stat'. Which is silly when you really think about it, its not mean to be a beauty stat, you can be a high charisma orc with a burned face and still have massive charisma. Just... something about you, some force of presence. I figure only reason CHA isn't used for Priests as there casting stat is CHA gives 0 insight into anything, which is what Wisdom is meant to signify. Wisdom, unlike int or cha is the characters abilities to simply understand things with out detailed explanation. Ultimately, for DnD, i think it works exceptionally well though many people (including my self for awhile there) just view certain attributes incorrectly to what they're intention is.
  19. @Ganrich: That we definitely agree on. I like Ferocity as a attribute but I think the whole list lacks a good mental one for speech checks. I think perception, as I mentioned before, isn't the best name (even though I LIKE the word its self and kinda want it on that virtue alone... but still think it makes a bad attribute). Maybe replacing Perception with a more mental related attribute name would allow for an 'int' replacement with out it being int. In either case, throwing int and str out the window, and coming up with some stuff that works for a vast array of archetype builds, that plays nice with speech checks and the like would be to everyone's benefit. ^.^ -edit- You know, as much as I like the word Ferocity (and think its fits a damage attribute) someone mentioned 'wheres the souls stat'. Maybe along with said Body attribute there should just be a SOUL attribute. Which governs Damage and Healing. I mean the Soul in PoE 'does' kinda govern spells and 'feats of strength', barb rage, all that nonsense. So theres my Vote, swap out Strength with Body (bleeehh) and Throw in a Soul attribute for the dmg/healing. And as awkward as I think acuity is I do agree it makes an ok replacement for INT as far as speech checks are concerned so... yeah. Body, Souls, mind-oriented attribute name. I'd be pretty darn happy with that.
  20. Yeah instant-regen since thats the role it plays. I wouldn't mind no-regen or slow regen if your characters have all been up for 48+ hours. But there have been studies in relation to that kinda thing, people getting little sleep while on a mountain climb... it becomes more of a mental thing then a physical thing after awhile. Body is more then capable after 30 min to an hours worth of sleep, that 7+ extra hours all for the brain so being 'tired', makes a bit more sense for it to just effect other stats then making stamina not function. So yeah, fast, and some kind of fatigued mechanic would be nice, though don't think that should effect stamina regen much, if at all. -edit- @Osvir: That's what Health is for and would make limiting stamina based off dmg taken a redundancy. Your suggested 30% is actually close to there 25% (or 4:1 ratio) or stamina to health loss. Hell if anything losing stamina would almost act as a safeguard against your health in extreme cases. Say you lose 50% stamina, for 4 battles straight yeah? In 4 battles you'd of lost half your health at that point, and of lost 60% of your total max stamina. You'd only have 40% max stamina in a fight, but still have half your health. You'd be incapable of losing 50% stamina so lets say the 5th fights all 40% and your knocked out flat, that comes out to 10% more life gone, now your 'capped' at 28% stamina and your at 40% total life. Next fight your knocked out even 'faster' lose even more max stamina and your health is barely touched. I think we're better off letting stamina do what they designed it to do, and let health be the limiting long-term factor as its intended to be. Otherwise you just get some weird redundancies that act against each other.
  21. Except, yet again, im not talking about classes. And yeah in relation to DnD im going to point out feats that alter things because 'that's what there attribute system is designed around. Yes I realize PoE isn't, or most likely doesn't want to be and wants there attributes to be more free form. Again, not talking about classes but a basic archetype that can be applied to any class. If strength exists, and it has no effect on melee combat its just going to be weird. If INT is the sole source of damage for melee (outside of talents) thats... also weird. It works in DnD cause its governed by attribute based off the source not just a single one doing it all. I get PoE isn't going to do that, and I think that's where the problem is, though I don't think that a single stat doing all the dmg for all sources is a bad thing. I just don't think it should be INT, or STR for that matter. All im saying is you can't make a proper Brute with there current direction (or the one they've mentioned considering). And saying 'well you can use other stats that're completely unrelated to it to fake it' doesn't change that. There could easily be a talent that makes STR function as melee dmg on larger weapons that alleviates some of this, but as you said we don't know about any of that, and going at this as attributes and nothing else it doesn't work for me, and a lot of other folks. Can read my above post for what I'd ultimately prefer.
  22. I agree. Honestly I think my ultimate preferred solution to all this would be the further up proposed attribute layout with body and ferocity (well maybe something other then body... like vitality or... anything besides body). Then, with that more generalized attribute naming not tying it down anymore, have a bunch of out-the-gate background 'traits' (kinda like New Vegas) that allow us to hone these archetypes we keep bitching at each other about. Hell one could just be called Brute, gives bonus to melee damage. Brute background, sizeable points into 'Ferocity'. That'd fit pretty good in my book. I think the New Vegas starter traits (of which you got to pick up to 2 of) I felt really allowed you to color your character in interesting ways that played well with the attributes, you know? -edit- Oh on a side note, I 100% agree with them on the way DnD handles attributes would be a problem for this game. A lot of that has to do with just how DnD is, you can literally do anything you want in that. I mean theres a near endless supply of PrC and oddball feats that let you... really do just about anything. Put that into a cRPG and your limiting those options considerably by virtue of having a limit on content. Add to that no multi-classing or prestige classes as they're going with and attributes definitely need to be a bit more muddy in concept and function.
  23. I still consider it one. Saying build a stupid 'wizard' when a Wizards life revolves around READING and learning is more setting up a scenario for failure then anything else. The Brute requiring damage from strength to 'work' is playing 'to' what the brute is. Making a mentally retarded wizard is playing against what a wizard is. Same with Cha on a Sorcerer, it's how the class functions. Working directly 'against' that is something you can go ahead and try to do but they're separate things. As an example one could make a brutish Sorcerer in DnD by giving him a good bit of strength and having him carry a club around. Doesn't mean he'd be as efficient as a fighter but a Brutes a brute, its not a class its an attribute allocation thing. Granted most are fighter or fighter types but that's just the common route. As far as making a Fighter type max dmg potential with out strength there are feats and PrC's that allow you to use other stats to gain the damage you would of gotten from strength. Dualist I believe uses INT for dmg as a straight bonus. Meaning it'll work hand in hand 'with' your strength but wouldn't require you maximize strength to get your damage boost. Yes that's an additional class but that's kind of the point I've been trying to make. A Brute is a strength dependent character (for damage). You can have a smart brute, or a dexterous brute, but you can't have a low STR brute. It's what makes them a brute in the first place (that and how they handle situations). It has little to do with your class, though people tend to use specific classes for obvious reasons. Anything related to feats or feat-like-abilities PoE (talents or whatever) would be 'training'. It would make more sense for there to be a talent or feat or whatever that gives a damage bonus based off INT to allow for a more dualist style fighter then the other way around. ...seriously a stupid wizard? They 'have' to be able to read in the first place to even use spells. That has to be one of the worst examples I've seen in attempting to make a point. -edit- @Curry: Yeah I mostly agree but they're still using a very DnD style structure to it. Attributes and skills are pretty much the same. Only difference, really, is instead of just having 'feats' they have them split up into class specific feats (which I forget what they call, I think 'Abilities') and universal ones which I think they're calling talents. Other then that its a very similar structure and concept for most of them. In either case I agree with the direction there 'wanting' to go, I just think there current allocation is limiting (or the naming is, one or the 2).
  24. Yeah I agree for the most part Silent Winter. Was thinking on what I said about DnD 3E being a good representation for attributes and allowing you to create almost anything you want out of that. Was trying to think of 'attributes' I felt it maybe missing and was thinking Perception and Luck but quickly thought otherwise and since Perception was mentioned as a likely stat figured I'd mention why. Simply put I don't think Perception is something that fits as an attribute and is better suited as an array of skills (like it is in DnD). I mean some people are born with better then average vision, some far sided, some have horrible near sided vision. But it's not really something you can work on like your physical body so much. If you got garbage eye sight you... will pretty much always have garbage eye sight. In fact, your eyes will almost certainly get worse and worse as you age requiring thicker glasses to compensate. Sure with current laser technology we can fix a good number of cases with corrective surgery but that's not really likely to be a thing in PoE. Ears are largely the same way, sense of smell, taste. These are things that tend to be 'as is' but are related to certain skills people can work on to improve there ability to, more or less, pay attention better to said senses. Why a skill to listen, or spot hidden people, or traps makes more sense then some universal 'attribute' that just kind of means all of it. As for luck, lucks an unmeasurable 'thing' that no ones capable of working on. Luck, along with many other things often associated with 'perception' I feel are better as starter traits, background things that give a base of who your character is/was and how they got there. Such as being far or near sided. It's stuff we're ultimately born with. Just another 2 cents thrown into this pile we got going.
  25. @Ganrich: it isn't possible. The brute relies on strength to win. Strength = Damage. Yes you can bring up other stats which may or may not fit some aspect of your 'brute' but if the damage isn't coming from strength then it's just kinda wrong. Basically you can drop strength all together in your 'brute' examples, get the exact same outcome and hes still not a brute. All you kind of did was lose some HP. Heavy HP isn't exactly paramount with the brute though they often go hand in hand. Yes, this is ultimately semantics but that's RP. You maybe ok with your work around but theres a whole lot of us that simply isn't, and wont ever be. And from my perspective, your as wrong as it gets on this but its an opinion so... yeah. To some of the other posts, 3E DnD does a damn good job at letting you do whatever the balls you want. The 6 Attributes fit just about everything I can think of. Most anything else aren't attribute related and are skills/feat/class related. Also to this whole Strength as a skill. It's not a skill. Its a physical trait, which is relatively mailable (to different degrees). Now, a sport, of some kind that 'involves' weight training (bulking up heavily) is a skill, and as such they're closely related but Strength, in and of its self, is 'not' a skill... at all.
×
×
  • Create New...