Ganrich

So warriors can't dump all their points into Strength and maximize damage potential. I have given many examples of builds that (if Obsidian balances the effects of the attributes) allow non-intellect based builds for warriors. They are all theory of course, but if I can describe them with our knowledge of the system... It stands to reason given Obsidian's goals that we can build them. The Brute can exist in this system, but not by speccing only strength and con. Perception for criticals, dexterity for accuracy, resolve for AOE, stuns, and bleeds. You can make the archetype. You also have a few different flavors to select from. If we say things like "I want to build a high damage warrior that had no points in strength" we can poke holes in any attribute system as this example does to D&D. The question is, "Does this system allow for a build that hits hard in melee without having a high Int?" I say it does as we have 3 other stats that can increase your damage in some form. I am thinking of a build right now with a focus on strength, dexterity, and perception. It hardly grazes, and tends to crit fairly often. Don't want dexterity? How about a character with the background of a bodyguard or bouncer? Strength makes sense, as does Perception ( bouncer needs to see danger before it gets too close as does the bodyguard), resolve would make sense in both scenarios as well. This character will crit a fair bit, I would focus on stun duration since knocking out your opponent makes sense with this example. The only caveat here I see is that you can't spec solely strength and con and potentially dump every other stat and have an epic dragon killing warrior. Something many PnP games (not naming names) have allowed warriors to do for years. Now, if you do that you will be a tank build.

@Lephys - This is in theory btw. 1). Medium strength (doesn't have an extra 17 pints of blood), medium/high constitution, little Dexteriy, high perception, lower intellect, and medium/high resolve. This would allow the fighter to have high crit chances, decent staying power, increased stuns and perhaps DoT effects and maybe increased AoE from his weapon. 2). This one is rough, but I would do a similar build as above. You would crit a fair bit, have increase effects and AoEs from spells, so on. The one change I would make is perhaps pull points from con and str and increase dexterity to higher levels. That way you graze less with your weapon. You would start out at range in an encounter and possibly move closer toward the end of combat. This doesn't fit the maximum mental capacity thing, but that makes this example intentionally difficult. This is with our limited information, and the second skirts your rules a bit. However I believe these builds would work pretty much inside your parameters. It's Xmas, and I hope Josh is far and away from this forum at the moment. @Cultist - In D&D, Sloth (Goonies) could kill dragons. That sword cuts both ways. Edit: I think it is safe to assume our PCs in Pillars of Eternity won't be suffering from ALS. They will have functioning bodies. Just like in D&D you can't drop your intelligence to the point of being a vegetable.

Power gamers will power game regardless of how the ability system is handled. So, if 18 Intellect, 18 Dexterity, and 18 perception maximizes damage then power gamers will select those for their fighter. This system has the potential to allow for build versatility for others though. We would have a tough time of it making a system where power gamers wouldn't do their thing, and I see little benefit it trying.

I understand why Intellect is a point of contention when damage is concerned for melee, but what I don't understand is why people believe they cannot make a damage oriented warrior without a high Intellect. We don't know the details of the system, and I am going out on a limb and saying that is where the devil lies here. For one, Intellect in PE is far worse a stat than Strength in D&D because it doesn't boost accuracy or too hit. I am going to make a few points by using the PE abilities and their boosts but using 3.5 D&D numbers and abilities so it is easy to explain: In D&D a strength of 18 gives +4 to hit, and +4 to damage. While outside of feats and certain weapons D&D has no way to increase critical range. You cannot boost an ability like Perception to increase it. That said, in PE you could forgo Intellect and get high perception with a Warrior, and this would effectively increase your crit chances. So, a longsword has 1D8 damage and a crit range of 19-20/x2. This means you have a damage range of 1 to 8, and a 10% chance of criticals that give you 2x damage (2-16 damage on crit). With Strength at 18 you have a 5-13 damage range and that is 10-23 if you crit. If you select the Improved Critical (longsword) feat you increase your crit chance by 10% to 20% total. A character with improved critical can effectively double his critical chance with the feat (or a keen weapon), and then crit on average 1 out of 5 swings. In PE Intellect increases damage alone, and you have perception increase crit range. SO, if you forgo Intellect, and spec perception (Using the D&D example of how longsword's stats) you may be able to increase your critical without that feat. I am going to do some conjecture here. Let's say that the longsword is 1D8 and has a crit of 20/x2, but each 2 points in Perception (over 10 as the 3.5 D&D norm) you gain 1 increase to crit on a d20. At 12 perception you have a 19-20, at 14 Perception an 18-20, etc. Someone specced into Perception all the way to 18 would crit almost 15% more often than the one that specs Intellect for the damage and none into Perception. Will these numbers equal out in the end? Doubtful, but you are given the option of a bursty warrior with this build. A warrior specced into Perception will crit 20% of the time, do 1-8 damage, and x2 on crit (in this example). A warrior specced into Intellect will do (at 18 Intellect) 5-13 damage, crit 5% of the time, and x2 for crit. We also don't know if there are feats that increase damage, if there are Strength requirements on heavier weapons that deal more damage (2 handed weapons for instance), how much of a boost to critical range Perception gives, whether other stat requirements could be placed on certain weapons, etc. For instance, a Strength build, with Perception, could have a Claymore (with a 18 Strength and Perception requirement) that does something like 4D4 damage and has a critical of 20% still. Thus giving him 4-16 damage, and the increased crit. Giving him near the damage of a Intellect/Strength build, but with a weapon unavailable to that particular build, and still more critical chance. SImultaneously, there could be bleeding effects in the game. If there is then a Warrior could spec into Resolve and increase the duration of the bleeds, and this would give him another form of sustained damage. While similarly there may be a fair bit of Stuns for warrior types, and once again Resolve would allow the player to spec their melee character to be a stun machine. Once again, larger weapons like Claymores (or dual wielding weapons) could have an AoE component, and once again Resolve to the rescue. Then there is accuracy and Dexterity. I am unsure how Josh's "Graze" system will work with Accuracy. Will a higher Dexterity increase critical chance based on the way that system works? Does it just make NPCs you would have trouble hitting easier to hit? If anyone has more info on this I would like to know, honestly. Either way, I can't imagine many melee builds would be void of speccing some into Dexterity as it does increase accuracy. My point is, at present, given what little we know we cannot say that Intellect would definitively give you the best damage oriented Warrior. All we can do is speculate. We are definitely jumping the gun based on our understanding of other game's systems and not looking at how things like Gear, the graze system, Perception, Resolve, how weapons stats work, etc may work. We have little to no knowledge of it. However, I know we should voice our opinions and ernestly. Which many are, but I think we also need to see the other things that may occur within the system to alleviate our fears.

Definitely a Chanter. I am leaning toward Godlike myself, as well. Don't know about the parent race though. I tend to play good characters on my first play through, but want more knowledge on things before delving too deep. I want it to make sense in the game world, with available potential background, etc.

Food for thought based on my last post. This is a set of replacement names that may possibly work in and out of combat and IMHO follow the Soul Power theme of Pillars of Eternity. Strength (Body) Constitution (Endurance) Dexterity (Mastery) Perception (Perception) ? Intellect (Mind) Resolve (Spirit) Arguably, Dexterity is probably fine as is, but since it governs accuracy... it could also allow Mastery as a possibility. I couldn't think of anything to substitute for Perception that doesn't drastically change what it would govern in out of combat scenarios. The best I got was looking up synonyms, and I found Consciousness and although that fits in with the Soul Theme... I believe it is too ambiguous as to what it would do. I don't know though. Thoughts or suggestions?

Yeah, I don't care for fitness. I wouldn't mind it in a game set in modern times, or in the future. Fitness would fit (no pun intended) in a modern day RPG, or even futuristic. It has a very mechanical vibe to it. I still prefer Body, but Vitality is ok too. I would say: Body Endurance (replacing con) Dexterity Perception Acumen Resolve Although, I do agree with Indira that acumen does encroach on perception in some ways. What about "Mind" as a replacement for intellect? It could encompass something like ferocity in mentality, while still being sensible in out of combat checks for intelligence. It's a little more all encompassing and vague, but still gives some understanding. Body Endurance Dexterity Perception Mind Resolve We could, as someone suggested get a set of names that work in and out of combat and fit the "soul power" theme. Body and mind work from that standpoint, but many of the others may be subject to opinion. Spirit could replace resolve in name. Endurance, dexterity, and perception are arguable.

Bards have always been a support character. In physical combat they are outclassed fighters, Pallys, barbs, monks, and rangers in most cases. In spell casting they are outclassed by wizards, sorcs, Druids, and Clerics in most cases. As support, by buffing the party, healing here and there, firing wands and scrolls, and general versatility... They are outclassed by nothing. Bard song + buffs will outshine wizards and sorcs here IMO. If you want a character that focuses on a single part of combat then the bard isn't for you, but if you want to do a little of this and a little of that... It is a blast. Although the 2E vanilla bard was pretty lackluster they are a really good class in 3.5 and can, if specced appropriately, be insanely good. A strength based build in NWN2 using buff spells, battle caster feat, and a level or 2 in fighter can be a wrecking ball on the battlefield. If you haven't tried it then you should. Very good build for a MotB run through if anyone is feeling the need for another go of it. PS. I use to hate bards.

I should have waited another 10 minutes or so to post as Elerond's idea of Acumen is something I like. Indira, Your distinction between intellect and intelligence is great, and I agree. However, that withstanding, I have found it equally Bizarre that intelligence hasn't helped combat in previous RPGs. Pen and paper or otherwise. I definitely think increasing duration of effects and AoE radius makes resolve much less so redundant, but one person's trash... Merry Christmas!

@Lephys I was being a bit microscopic, but a 6 year old vs a 7 foot old man is a bit too wide a gap to be a fair comparison. So I went the extra mile. On the note of strength increasing attack speed: I like it. A stronger person would definitely be capable of stopping a mace's momentum after a hearty swing, and getting it moving in the opposite direction more efficiently. This would increase the quickness of his attacks potentially. My one fear is that since PE is being designed for RTwP combat it might have some adverse effects, but I am sure things like "haste" are in the game so it shouldn't be an issue. I would go a step further and say Strength would make more sense governing stamina instead of health. So strength would make more sense increasing stamina and inventory space while constitution would cover health. A strong person won't tire out when swinging his/her weapon as quickly as a less strong person, and thus they have greater stamina. I don't know if that makes Constitution even more susceptible to being a dump stat though. I wouldn't even be against both Strength and intellect both giving Damage bonus', but perhaps canceling one another out and not stacking after a point. Using 3.5 rules strapped to PE abilities as an example: a character with 18 str has a +4 to damage, and in PE a character with 18 int has a +4 to damage, but someone specced in 18 in both only gets +4-6 (instead of the logical + 8 ) in damage because the abilities overlap their bonus' and/or suffer diminishing returns. This may be too convoluted in the end though. Nomenclature: the one issue I see is if we design sensible names for the attributes in combat that they might lose their meaning in non-combat checks. Body IMHO would still work if you need to bash down a door if you replace Strength with it. Ferocity won't understand how a gun functions in a dialogue, thus not giving you a dialogue option for showing understanding, when you replace intellect. Although from a combat standpoint it is an awesome name. So we have to have names that work in combat and non-combat. Body Constitution Dexterity Perception Expertise (replacing intellect perhaps) Resolve ^ this possibly solves the issues from a combat and non-combat perspective. Expertise can still function like intellect in out of combat scenarios and still make sense, and the same with Body replacing strength. Out of combat issues might be resolved with skills instead of directly from attributes... I can't remember if they have said, butt these attributes will still govern and enhance those skills so they need to make sense in both situations. I love resolve please don't change it. . I have lived too long in a "charisma isn't worth it" world with my favorite classes being charisma based: bard, warlock, pally, sorcerer. Resolve was my favorite attribute announced.

@Lephys I agree about Strength possibly affecting weapon speed, and have more on that, but I am at work at the moment and my lunch nears an end so I will post more on it later.

I think you confuse the role of intelligence and skill, otherwise using the same argument intelligence should give bonus to almost everything in the game. Simply replace warrior and weapon with any other class and skill. No, I understand that. I am just trying to see this from the perspective of the current system, and arguing the sense of it. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate to be sure. I do see this as a flaw in many cRPG's though. There are very few tangible benefits in most games to the intelligent warrior unless it is a hybrid caster of sorts, or the player is just RPing. Intelligence should have some play in physical combat IMHO. On the note of a 6 year old vs a 7 foot grown man. A 7 foot tall grown man with the strength of a 6 year old will hit harder than just a 6 year old simply because the distance from his shoulder to the edge of his mace is longer, and that means the edge of the mace is traveling at a faster velocity. So this example is a bit poor because not all things are equal other than strength and intellect as there are huge differences in physics. My argument has been that 2 grown men of equal height, one is fit and smart and the other a mound of muscle... I would consider the intelligent one more so, if not at least equally, dangerous. If we took someone 6 feet tall, smart, and was fit but not Hercules... Put him against someone how was much stronger, the same height, and age, but a bit dense. I would bet on the smart one all things other than smarts and strength being equal. Like i said in a previous post I definitely see STR being fine, but as someone pointed out if you start moving the benefits of these stats around to other stats you will lose out on what josh is trying to do by not having dump stats while retaining a versatile ability system. This is why I am arguing for it because I am not a fan of dump stats.

What is intelligence if not the ability to better apply the knowledge you have gained with experience and level, though? Give the brute and the smart warrior the same level, weapon, and abilities and the smart warrior will find more ways to use that weapon and abilities than the brute. The smart warrior is more capable of applying his knowledge and skill in more versatile ways than the brute. The brute is more likely to just copy and paste what they have seen and experienced. While the smart warrior will adapt a single technique that was taught for a single situation to many more situations where it is applicable. This would allow for more sustained damage which is what Intellect provides in this case. Strength definitely is fine for a simple RPG attribute, but so is intelligence. We just have to "unlearn what we have learned."

Yeah, bards on NWN2 were pretty beastly. I particularly had fun with a strength based Bard. Edit: I also beat both BGs with a bard, and although lackluster... They can be useful if played right. They are much weaker in BG1 than 2 though.

Like I said: batman wasn't the best example, but I couldn't think of one as apt. I think he is fairly intelligent. I imagine a man that watches his parents get shot down in front of him as a child may have issues with firearms. I wouldn't say that not using guns makes batman stupid. Just principled. He is supposedly the best detective in the world, but a fictional detective is only ever as intelligent as the man writing the plot, and batman has never been written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. If the fast intelligent man knows to stay away from the brute and wait for an opportune moment so he could inflict a few big hits if he uses physics, anatomy, and speed. Very little pressure or strength is needed to do great damage to the human body. Joints are very susceptible regardless of muscle mass, your temple is a weak point, you can use the opponents weight against them, etc etc. The smart man would wait and strike at weak spots. You are right though. It is all down to the dice. It could go either way. The smart man could fail to avoid attacks, he may miss crucial chances to attack, or what have you. The strong man could roll that perfect critical, or whatever. In the end I see this, in MMORPG terms, as a tank (Strong man) vs DPS (fast intelligent man). You have a different outlook, and that is cool. With the system in place a strong average or less intelligent fighter could do well in DPS by speccing some into dex (accuracy) and perception(critical), and use strength to make him tanky like a fighter, barbarian, Pally character should be. It hasn't been stated that a warrior class type would need much in the way of intelligence to do solid damage, but that when int is specced the character may be a little less tanky and more damage oriented. A fighter with higher than average str, con, and perception would be bursty because of criticals. A fighter with higher than average str, con, and intellect would be more sustained damage. A fighter with higher than average str, con, resolve could have a more whirl wind AoE style. A fighter that focuses purely on str and con is a tank. I see it as pretty versatile. It may be less so for the power gamer/munchkiner though. The perfect build will out for those that want it.

@Nonek - I was taking level and experience out of the equation at that moment when making the warrior vs muscle man point. However, you would be correct that it is the case in most RPGs. It isn't only learning 'how' to hit, but when/where/how you 'should' strike. Applying the things you learned over those levels and experience takes a form of intelligence. All things being equal, when both the cunning warrior moderately strong and the muscle man are equal level who would do more damage? The man who has bigger muscles? Or the cunning man who has, through intellect, learned to apply what he has learned (weak spots, anatomy, physics, etc) more aptly in a fight? To use an example from The Dark Knight Returns (comic not movie): The Batman example isn't the best because it isn't necessarily about damage, but it is just me trying to explain my point that a smart warrior > a strong guy. So, in RPG terms, if you win... You won the Damage race vs the enemy. Kind of circular logic but it is what it is. I am not saying the old ideologies aren't correct in their own way so much as saying I understand why intellect was chosen here. In short, training and experience fall on def ears if the student isn't intelligent enough to apply the knowledge.

I was just thinking about Body instead of Strength.

On the note of might vs power vs strength I would prefer might over the other 2 if the reason for that change is to avoid previous associations to the word from fooling people. Power is used in a few MMOs as a damage increasing stat (SWTOR comes to mind), and we all know where strength has been used. I don't know though. Any of the three would work. If we are trying to avoid the player assuming that strength/might/power implies damage increase... might I suggest that we change Stregth/Might/Power to Constitution, and change Constitution over to Endurance. The reasons being that: Constitution has, more often than not, increased health. Not so much Stamina. The more healthy you are... The more you can carry. Endurance implies the ability to keep from being winded when you are really pushing yourself. So, it makes sense for stamina since it, I believe, regenerates between combats. So instead of: Str/might/power Constitution Dexterity Perception Intellect Resolve We would get: Constitution - increase health and inventory slots Endurance - increase stamina Dexterity - accuracy Perception - critical damage Intellect - damage and healing Resolve - duration and AoE Anyway, just my 2 cents.

The former DnD nerd in me sees Strength makes you hit harder, Intelligence makes your arcane magic better, Etc, etc. However, when the current system was explained I really liked it because I understand a warrior with the moderate muscle mass would decimate a body builder with no training. That training the warrior has is a form of intellect. Intelligence in DnD is book smarts and logic, but I think many can see there are other forms of intelligence not covered there (in DnD those are covered with Wisdom to an extent and sometimes charisma [like the knowledge of bartering, lying, diplomacy, ect.]). Knowledge of combat technique is a form of intelligence and I can understand this system going this route. Intelligence makes the most sense to me to govern healing and damage simultaneously. Most generals are very intelligent people (I said 'most'), but they may not understand quantum mechanics. While a knight with experience understands how to gauge his enemy, tactics, weaknesses in armor, etc. He won't understand the mysteries of the arcane though. His intelligence was used to master his body and the battlefield but not the arcane. Looking at guns/bows/xbows etc. Understanding bullet/arrow drop, leading the target, proper breathing, once again weaknesses in armor, etc are all a form of knowledge. While with wands... If you don't know how to handle the item in question you aren't going to use it to any great effect. Heck, you might blow yourself up. I don't think anyone could argue that intelligence works perfectly for healing across the board. It would encompass both arcane and mundane healing techniques if they are available in game. Also, I think that many backers will read the stat, skill, and feat tool tips (read that manual!!) thoroughly enough that changing the ideology here from the standard affair will have a fairly negligible effect. We are pnp jockeys for the most part, and some want to understand the rules thoroughly in order to power game while others want to make the character that they want down to the perfect animal companion (hamster of course).

Yeah, SRR without mods would be disappointing. With them though I definitely am getting my money's worth, and there is more to come. EDIT: and FTL is just amazingly fun. A wonderful game.

Happy holidays, everyone. You guys and gals enjoy some R and R.

Awesome! TY Josh!

Josh, that looks very interesting. I have a quick question. Will the attribute be specced at character creation like the IE games, or will it be like Dragon Age: Origins where they mostly go up as you level? I am hoping for the former.

I definitely don't want consoles to die, but I do want analog sticks to die in fiery acid. Which is why I have hope for valves controller. I like playing from the couch as much as the next guy, but my preferred genres usually keep me at a desk.

It has a 15 minute short film that is fan made. I like it.