Danathion

This is the second time today that I've liked something Stun wrote (well, this part of it)... Something weird is definitely going on. But yeah, this is something I absolutely agree with, and it's something I've been saying for some time. The problem is that attributes give bonuses/penalties in a very linear manner when the penalty for lowering a stat from the average range should be increasingly more severe the lower you go. There's nothing really wrong with min-maxing and it should remain possible, but it should carry a price. Dumping a stat should mean that you're handicapping your character in some aspect (beyond just "oh dear, my accuracy is slightly below average") and you need to make significant adjustments in your playstyle to compensate. This would contradict the design goal: no bad builds. The whole design is that however you place the attribute points, you'll still have a successful character because the base class is already built for success, for you. That's why people are saying there is no point having the attribute 'modifying' system. Personally, the more I see people defending it the more I agree that it should be removed - it's getting in the way of playing and enjoying the game. Give us the predefined classes and lots of skills and talents etc to customise our play style. 'Might' can just as well be a skill and probably makes a better skill than it does attribute.

This, please! So they should get rid of it, since its only real function seems to be to try to make the game appear more like Baldur's Gate.

There's a class for that, it's called: Ranger. Seriously, I don't understand why some people think twisting the 'cookie-cutter' so it's shaped like that other 'cookie-cutter' is a good idea, and that somehow because you've twisted it into that shape, it means there are no 'cookie-cutter' builds. The classes are the classes, they are defined by their attributes: a cleric with no wisdom is not a cleric, a low strength high dexterity fighter is not a fighter - he's a rogue ) Now, to defend the attribute system you're saying that they are just modifiers - because the classes already have their attributes allocated, using the appropriate 'cutter.' Really, there should be no attribute system. We should choose a class and diversify our 'builds' through a far more extensive selection of skills/talents/abilities. That would be balanced, everything would be viable and really that's what the developers wanted in the first place. The attribute system is only in the game because they made the mistake of emphasising Baldur's Gate etc, in the beginning.

Please, not turn-based! if you're not pausing, pause

So why would you care about your attributes again. It seems that currently you can assign points in whatever way you want, because it will only have a minor effect on your character build. This needs to be fixed. it seems obvious that, as has been said elsewhere, Josh didn't really want attributes but included them under the pressure of expectation - a successor of the IE games must have attributes and there must be six of them - As a result all they're actually accomplishing is causing a lot of confusion, which in turn is throwing a spanner in the 'balance' works. All 6 attributes are never going to be equally valuable to every class, (at least in the minds of the players the attributes have been added to please). Trying to make them so is futile and has resulted in the effect that they have little impact. I'll repeat my suggestion: 3 attributes instead of 6. Currently 2 attributes govern a Defence Type, I suggest merging the attributes and calling them by their respective Defence Type titles: Might + Constitution = Fortitude Dexterity + Perception = Reflex Intellect + Resolve = Will Fortitude, Reflex and Will should be recognisable and understandable. Then we never need to hear about Might again...ever again. I suggest removing the superfluous effects the attributes have - given to make them seem appealing/balanced - particularly the passive effects and add them as skills: Diplomacy/Intimidation etc. I suggest splitting physical and magical damage - Magical damage to be governed by Will. That way you have your Warrior, Wizard, Rogue attribute that everyone is familiar with. Should you desire a frontline Wizard you take a bit more fortitude at the expense of Reflex and Will. If you want a barbarian who is a cunning fighter you choose Will and sacrifice Fortitude or Reflex. Class customisation/experimentation is achieved through Skill/Talent/Ability choices. That's how to achieve diversity, not with attributes for the sake of having them.

A suggestion regarding attributes I made in one of the many debates about attributes: Have 3 attributes instead of 6. Currently 2 attributes govern a Defence Type, I suggest merging the attributes and calling them by their respective Defence Type titles: Might + Constitution = Fortitude Dexterity + Perception = Reflex Intellect + Resolve = Will Fortitude, Reflex and Will should be recognisable and understandable. If possible, I suggest splitting physical and magical damage - Magical damage to be governed by Will. That way you have your Warrior, Wizard, Rogue attribute that everyone is familiar with. Should you desire a frontline Wizard you take a bit more fortitude at the expense of Reflex and Will. Class customisation/experimentation is achieved through Skill choice, perhaps more skills are needed.

Then he should remove attributes completely from the system. Six attributes are a nightmere to balance, and a wasted effort since they don't have any impact and the system works just fine without them. I know Josh felt that he had to put six attributes in there because D&D, but he designed them in such a way that the people who would complain because "no attributes", don't like them and complain anyway. He should have removed attributes, and have abilities and talents as the sole methods to tweak the classes. And then he should have the six intuitive attributes (str/dex/con/int/wis/cha), only with zero mechanical impact and used only in dialogue and scripted interactions. All problems solved, it would be a better game closer to Josh's vision, and the gnognards who would complain are propably complaining anyway. I would propose something of a compromise: 3 attributes instead of 6. Currently 2 attributes govern a Defence Type, I suggest merging the attributes and calling them by their respective Defence Type titles: Might + Constitution = Fortitude Dexterity + Perception = Reflex Intellect + Resolve = Will Fortitude, Reflex and Will should be recognisable and understandable. If possible, I suggest splitting physical and magical damage - Magical damage to be governed by Will. That way you have your Warrior, Wizard, Rogue attribute that everyone is familiar with. Should you desire a frontline Wizard you take a bit more fortitude at the expense of Reflex and Will. Class customisation/experimentation is achieved through Skill choice, perhaps more skills are needed.

I made a new topic on this before seeing this thread, so apologies for the duplication! I've been watching several youtube videos to get a better idea of how people are finding the beta. I've observed that there is some difficulty grasping the Health-Stamina mechanic. it seems to me to be a naming issue and my suggestion is this: Rename Health as Endurance, rename Stamina as Health. The 1:4 ratio relationship remains the same. Endurance should be expressed as a percentage and health as a number of HP. In combat Health is lost and recovered by use of spells, potions etc. However Endurance is recovered only by resting. Healing by magical means addresses only the wound, allowing you to continue to fight, but not the long term effects of battle. Serious wounds (being maimed after falling unconscious) and the physical/mental/spiritual etc fatigue of prolonged combat are only overcome by rest. I believe that is the idea, but for some, the current naming is a stumbling block.

Although not a beta participant, I have watched various youtube videos of others' experiences with the beta. From what I've seen the health/stamina mechanic seems confusing, in fact several people have a real problem getting a grip on it... My suggestion is to rename Health, Endurance and rename Stamina, Health. The ratio 1:4, Endurance:Health may remain the same. In combat Health is reduced and recovered by spells, potions etc However, Endurance is recovered only by resting. Healing a wound by magical means goes only as far as repairing the affliction, serious wounds (being maimed) and the physical/mental/spiritual etc fatigue of battle is only overcome by rest. Endurance should be expressed as a percentage, health by a number of hit points. well...that's my suggestion anyway...

I just need to be sure...you are playing Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition, aren't you? Supporting the enhanced editions of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will provide the needed funds for a 'Baldur's Gate Next.'