Gulliver
-
Posts
58 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Gulliver
-
-
Many of you have pointed out that it's the strength/weakness inherent to your character - but even those things can change over time and with effort. It's a very shallow answer, when the only real answer that is acceptable is "i prefer it that way," just as I prefer to be able to continue to manipulate attributes as my champs level up.
Some of them might change with time and effort.
One thing that always bothered me about increasing attributes is that it treats physical and mental attributes the same way. Attributes like strength, dexterity and endurance would certainly change with time. The more you work out, the fitter you are - hence your strength and endurance increase. (I know PoE uses might, I'm using strength as an example).
But when you look at mental attributes, this doesn't really apply. Okay, maybe an attribute like resolve might change, but intellect?
People with average intelligence will never become geniuses, no matter how much effort they put in. They could do intense mental work for a decade, but their basic intellect would change marginally at best.
-
Current companion portraits for comparison.
Love the elf portrait. These 4 portraits are pretty much exactly what I was hoping for.
-
1
-
-
D: OS is such a long game (70 hours to finish it if you aren't a completist on your first playtrough yep!) that it could afford putting the first map (and there is a LOT of content on this first map) for it's early access, and unlike Josh Sawyer at Larian they don't mind putting spoilers in their early access.
You're exaggerating. Took me 52 hours on my first playthrough and I am a completionist (at least in the sense of doing 100% of all quests).
You should also take into account what kind of content you get. I can't remember any quests in D:OS that had multiple solutions resulting in substantially different outcomes (other than the occasional opportunity to skip content). Lots of the length of the game comes from combat taking longer to happen due to the round-based system.
-
Women were just treated as obedient and willing sex objects in the Witcher. He more less just had to open his fly and they all came from a distance of 5 miles crawling to him, begging to give him fellatio. I was almost surprised that he didn't have an ability tree for his third sword.
1. What does any of that have to do with romance themes?
2. Seriously, it's just meant to be a bit of fun. Geralt is a lady's man, after all.
3. You do realize this isn't tumblr?
-
And the sex cards in The Witcher were probably the biggest disgrace to romance themes I've ever seen in an RPG. You almost can't sink lower than that.
What the **** is wrong with sex cards?
They were a fun little gag meant to stir people's desire to collect things and to give some nice visual feedback for the romps in the hay the game offered. And **** had nothing to do with 'romance'. (Unless you consider casual sex romance, of course.)
-
1
-
-
Replace fireball with any single target spell. You're purposely interpreting things to mean something that supports your point, then assume everybody does so for no reason other than to make your argument seem more valid.
Still missing the point, I see.
It's not about what you meant. It's about the kind of language you used to illustrate the meaning of might.
You also only made an argument for why Might could include AoE and duration as well, but stacking that much stuff on one stat is probably not the best of ideas.Actually, it's an argument for might to determine the overall energy of a spell and for intellect to decide to what degree you can manipulate the energy density while keeping the total energy constant.
-
You purposely misinterpreting a statement does not a mistake make. Stop playing dumb, unless you want me to treat you like you are.
Way to miss the point.
You intuitively associated might with the ability to make big explosions. In this case, that's simply false. Might does not make fireballs big. At the same time, larger explosions would intuitively come from more 'boom' behind the spell, which is what might is supposedly describing. Your particular choice of words when explaining what might does is a perfect illustration of how little sense the mechanical effects of might and intellect towards spells make considering what they're describing according to the lore.
-
You know exactly what is meant by "big fireballs"
That aside, all stats are, necessarily, game mechanical abstractions. Asking for them to be fully explained in-universe is often not terribly sensible. Int somehow makes abilities affect larger areas and last longer. Does that make logical sense? Probably not. Does it work as a game stat? I think so. Maybe it would have been better suited with a name like "Intensity".
Yes, I do. But the fact that you made that 'mistake' illustrates the problem that people have with this attribute system.
From a mechanical standpoint, the attributes work okay. And that's what they were designed for. They seem to be sliders for tweaking the combat abilities of your characters. At the same time, attributes are supposed to describe what kind of person your character is. What they fail to do, however, is to establish a reasonable connection between the character they are supposedly describing and the mechanical effects they have for that character.
-
Here you have it, the question that united "strength" with the in-game attribute "might". It has a lot of answers too, but you can re-read to find them.
As you can clearly see, I asked that question. Now, care to explain how I implied in that post that in this game might equals strength? The question asked was whether or not the fact that it doesn't is reflected in attribute checks and if so, which other attribute would get checked for cases where strength would be the usual go-to attribute.
2) You are wrong again, the real point of the post is that there can be physicaly strong wizards, heck its even on the title. You may or not agree to that but that was the real point of the thread. (I don't for example: as some people pointed out most of the characters that are not flawed in the dichotomy body-mind, are supernatural beings, sometimes of godlike powers (Tolkiens Noldors) or directly gods (Gandalf, Thor, Mercury), not the more terrenal "nerdy" creatures to what wizards are actually associated)
You do realize that I'm the one who made that point?
You can be academical and studious and work out 3 times a week easily. In fact, it's probably a good idea if you don't get much excercise during work. [...] Might stacking Wizards aren't necessarily the type that also spends time at the gym in their off hours. They are the guys with the really big fireballs.(you could even say they have huge balls which are on fire)
Of course you can do exercise after studying magic. The point is that such exercise requires extra work. A wizard in DnD could also be strong - all he had to do was increase his strength. As for the second point:
Might stacking wizards aren't the ones with the really big fireballs. Intellect increases aoe, might increases damage. So for some reason, intellect doesn't enable you to do more damage per area, but it does make you capable of putting an extra 77%(or 33%? is it radius or area?) of energy into your spell with 18 int, as opposed to 30%(I think?) extra for 18 might (assuming damage is proportional to energy density), which is somehow concentrated better. If might governs how much power (or energy to be less colloquial) you can put in your spells, why is the energy increase for intellect greater (or at least the same)?
How does that make any sense at all?
-
1
-
-
People, please: MIGHT is not STRENGTH.
If you destroy boulders with your fists in this game is not because your biceps are of epic proportions, its just that your ability to take power from your soul is epic. That is what might means. Does it feel counter intuitive coming from years of d&d? Yes, but its not a mistake in a coherent level. Think of might as "Ki", "Energy", "Presence","Chakra", "Cosmos" or heck, the lore friendly "soul power"!
Well, thank you for pointing that out to us.
If you'd read the thread, however, you would be aware that no one here claimed that might equalled strength. The point of the discussion is that given that might isn't strength, what is? Is the physical body of people in this world independent of their ability to smash boulders? Will we see hordes of shaky old men rip people apart with bare hands due to their enormous soul power?
-
1
-
-
IMO making the AoE effect of INT more pronounced and combining it with making the area controllable from base radius to radius with INT bonus would sort this out nicely. High-INT wizards would get significantly more control over their spells, low-INT ones would be restricted to base radius. It's a tangible benefit but not so much it would make INT a must-have stat for AoE spellcasters.
That would also be a possibility.
But as I pointed out, more area with the same damage would equal more total energy, which doesn't really make sense from a lore standpoint. One way to solve this would be to scale the damage inversely with the area.
Also, the scaling could work in both directions, say from -15% to 30% for max int. Frankly, I'd think that the possiblity of making aoe spells smaller would be far more useful than making them larger. In fact, them being larger might often hurt more than it helps.
-
1
-
-
It depends on what the atmosphere and style of game and story will be like.
If it's supposed to be epic, the main theme should be epic. If it's a melancholic game, the main theme should sound melancholic. If the story is about mysterious things happening, then the main theme should sound mysterious.
No way to tell if the main theme fits at this point.
-
4
-
-
Might does not necessarily refer to physical strength. In the context of PoE it might refer to the power of your soul or whatever. The term muscle wizard is thus a bit besides the point.
Honestly it kinda amazes me and astonishes me that this is STILL heavily discussed.
Have you even read anything that was written in this thread?
-
1
-
-
... How is this any better an idea than making so that Intellect drastically increases the duration and area of effect of spells, so a control mage would be more interested in Intellect than Might?
In fact, how does this help? It sounds like it's just an attempt to shoehorn in the requirement that mages be smart, without the setting or the system actually requiring it to be so.
It creates a sensible impact of intellect on spellcasting. Why on earth would a fireball of a mage with high intellect have a larger area of impact? In fact, why would any spell? More area really just means: more of the same stuff. Sensibly, putting more energy into a fireball would make a bigger explosion. Why does being smarter make you able to disperse energy over a larger area, but might enables you to create a higher energy density? If might governs the energy of spells, then neither duration nor area make any sense as a result of intellect. Energy = energy density*area or energy=power*time...both should thus be governed by might, if anything.
Frankly, the mechanical impact of intellect seems to have no connection to what that attribute is supposed to describe.
Also, it creates reasonable restrictions on a muscle wizard as a powerful, but simple wizard.
-
1
-
-
He's right, though. Fallout 3 isn't a very interesting game. New Vegas is pretty good, but the original game is pretty much like Oblivion.
I have no idea what any of this even means and I hope you realize how hard you're missing the point if you're citing some LoTR lore as a reason why Gandalf wouldn't be good with a sword.
Gandalf is good with a sword. What he's saying is that Gandalf is basically a half-god. Gods in general can be simultaneously great at everything.
-
2
-
-
Many people have complained about the lack of impact of attributes in the beta and specifically about might rather than intellect influencing the damage of spells.
I am somewhat split over this. On the one hand, I do think it makes sense to split raw magical power and the ability to intricately control spells into two different attributes. On the other hand, intellect influencing only aoe and duration does not seem to give intellect the kind of relevance I would like it to have for wizards.
As a suggestion: How about giving spells an intellect requirement? What I mean here isn't an intellect requirement that is vertical, i.e. that is linked to the level of the spell, which makes low intelligence mages useless in DnD for example, but horizontal, i.e. that every spell level has spells with a range of different intellect requirements. Very simple spells (e.g. spells that simply blow stuff up) can be cast by any wizard of sufficient level, more complicated spells require high intellect.
With this concept, bookworm-type mages would profit greatly from taking intellect and muscle mages with intellect 7 remain a viable option for someone who wants a wizard at the front lines exploding people.
-
This allows you to play a raw power feel the magic type wizard, a bookworm type wizard who knows details of how spells work and how to cast them skillfully, or a combination of both.
I agree that there should be a difference between having magical power and being good at the intricacies of magic. Magical power being directly linked to strength, however, more or less completely abolishes the stereotype of "old, but powerful" wizard, which is of course possible, but in my opinion unfitting for a game like this.
Before anyone complains: I didn't claim that strength and might are intrinsically linked in this game.
-
2. Bottomless stash - It detracts a strategic dilemma which was an important part of the dungeon crawling in the IE games (or the BG-series atleast). See part 1 for detailed description of my opinion.
Well, that being said, inventory management wasn't exactly the most enjoyable aspect of the IE games. If there are a lot of items to loot, it can in fact become very tedious very fast. I think I spent about 80% of my time in Elder Scrolls games optimizing the gold to weight ratio of the items in my inventory.
-
I think the point that PoE is lower level than BG 2 isn't appreciated enough. If there is one thing I can't stand, it's rpgs where every idiot has magical equipment.
A low level group of adventurers should be mostly equipped with non-magical equipment and the magical equipment it does have should be comparatively weak and bland. Items like Crom Faeyr, Celestial Fury, Carsomyr, Ring of Gaxx or a Staff of the Magi are epic artifacts meant to be wielded and found by people of epic proportions. A group on the level of the one we'll play in PoE should find no more than two or three such items, if that, and only towards the end of the game.
-
5
-
-
The real question is: Is the notion that might has nothing to do with strength reflected in the attribute checks it is relevant for?
Meaning: Which attribute is checked for lifting a heavy boulder?
-
1
-
-
Well in a very limited way because their is no logical reason why a sorcerer couldnt learn sword fighting as good as a fighter. He has the time, to train it.
That's what multiclass is for^^
-
Well the physicaly strong archetype exists for way longer than the modern bookworm one. In many cultures that archetype is still the way how magic users are presented.
As I said, that's because, generally speaking, magical powers in mythology are not associated with regular (well, except for the magic) human beings, but with gods, half-gods and other supernatural creatures.
In DnD, sorcerers, warlocks or druids would be far closer to this than wizards. So these other ways of gaining power are also present (at least in DnD).
-
1
-
-
If wizards were also physically strong, they are then clearly better than non-magic users.
Not really. There's more to being good at sword fighting than brute strength.
Still, I feel that the examples given by Mayama (or D10000) aren't overly valid for this discussion. If 'wizard' makes you think of almost divine entities(Gandalf, Feanor) or just plain gods(Odin, Mercury), then of course you're going to imagine people who are absolutely excellent at everything. That's what being divine is all about.
A regular fantasy wizard, however, is a human(like) being. To get the image of what a human wizard would be like from classical mythology, where magical powers are often reserved for gods and half-gods, is rather silly in my opinion.
Sure, a travelling adventurer wizard will likely be a reasonably fit individual. Such a wizard not being at the absolute peak of physical condition is simply derived from the notion that for humanlike beings wizardry requires extensive studies, which don't leave time for the training required for physical excellency.
-
1
-
-
Suit yourself. My muscle wizard casts with his muscles.
The question is: Can he suit himself?
Per se, I don't have a problem with having might (=soul power) rather than strength as an attribute. What I'm not quite sure about is what this means for attribute based checks. If an attribute check for moving a heavy boulder comes up, which attribute is going to be checked?
Do you get Attributes on Level Up?
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
No. No, you really couldn't. While I appreciate the point you made in general (i.e. "the greatest problem with trying to simulate "realism" in a game is that first, you have to determine what reality is"), in this specific case the notion that one could just as well argue the opposite is simply not true.
The brain is mutable, sure. But it is well established that you can't really train your general intellect. It's not like you can do math for a year and thereby increase your IQ by 15 points. It simply does not work like that.
If you, however, haven't been working out a lot and then start going to the gym for several hours a day, six days a week, every week of the year, your strength and endurance will increase massively and quickly. (Unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.)