Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sezneg

  1. There's a whole lot of personal preference in this post being dressed up like fact. Balance is found in the relationship between resting supplies, and need to rest - how many places to rest are there? How often can you use them safely or at all (consumables needed?). Whether this is tuned so that resting is rare, or tuned so that resting is more common is a preference. Both can be balanced. As for fighter health - I think we're drawing some conclusions based on limited knowledge. These are not even mid-geared characters, and certainly not utilizing skills/items to minimize being hit. It's similar to how early level D&D characters often have to rest every few encounters... with the primarily difference being how many hits they can take. POE characters take quite a few hits due to how combat is calculated - but the health damage adds up and requires resting. Low level D&D character is hit infrequently - however he cannot sustain many hits - and often has to rest after a handful of encounters. The only difference here to my eyes is that there are more hits taking place. if anything, a level 1 POE fighter could be said to be 'more sturdy' than a level 1 D&D fighter if we are basing this on how many hits they can take.
  2. The "bypass DT stat" would be wasted on targets with low or no DT. Raw damage is always useful. You keep failing to understand that Josh is planning to make all "attributes" very useful for all classes. The damage stat, Strength, will be very useful for damage-dealing or stamina-healing classes. A smart thing to do for a wizard would be, among other things, to also invest in the damage-dealing stat. Therefore, if you enjoy playing a useful damage-dealing wizard, you will be bound to play a physically strong wizard. Yes... So, there will be different stats that are useful in different situations, with one that is always useful, but less so compared to others in specific situations. Basically exactly what I wrote in my previous post(s). I think having different stats better in different situations is better, personally. It adds another layer, and more reason to balance stats rather than maximize one over all others.
  3. Sorry, this is another critical failure on your logic roll. Let's do this step by step: 1) The desire to build a powerful damage dealing wizard, yet physically weak. 2) To be able to deal solid damage with spells, it's ok to invest in the accuracy attribure, but more importantly, it's better to invest points in the damage attribure (strength). 3) Therefore, your wizard will have to be STRONK, physically. 4) Back to point "2". Why "more importantly"? 5) Because PE's mechanics, DT + grazes, favor high damage over high accuracy. 6) With a miniumum damage of 50, you deal 25 damage on a graze. There's only a 5% chance to outright miss, if acc. and def. are equal. Of course, if your accuracy is outclassed by the target's defense, you're going to miss more often. But you still need damage, too. 7) With low damage and high accuracy you risk to have your damage outright blocked even on normal hits. Start from point "1" again. This is only true in cases where DT is high compared base damage (and even then only so long as there is no other scaling system to overcome DT). I believe if you read my post, I did note that whether accuracy, DT reduction, Crit, or base damage increase were more valuable would depend on the situation and the target. This is called "depth". You have again ignored the potential to have a "bypass DT stat" as well, which against your hypothetical ultra high DT would be much more valuable than base damage. The point is, that there are many avenues that scale damage; all of which are strong against different types of targets - Accuracy is stronger than base damage increases vs a low DT hard to hit target, Any stat that adjusted DT amounts would be superior against a high DT target that was easy to hit; base damage increase is the "middle road" as it doesn't face diminishing returns towards the end of the scale the way my other two examples do. Finally, crit is a wile card. In situations where there are extra effects on abilities/spells on critical, and allowing for fairly generous scaling on critical chance, crit can become more valuable than all the other stats. Again; you are constructing a very specific model in your mind and are not allowing for ranges of values (How often do you expect DT to reach or exceed 50% of a spells base damage? Because that's the point of reference you are using in your above post). This is *not* logic, no matter what you wish to call it; we have no information telling us how DT is going to compare to base damage. We have no information informing us how much scaling will even be involved on a per-stat basis, or even *which* stat will increase damage. It's alright to make a taste based argument; you obviously support much more simulationist stats than we are likely going to get in PE... but that doesn't make it a logical argument.
  4. A wizard who wants to do any damage with his spells will have to invest in the damage stat -- strength. Therefore, this negates the existence of physically weak yet powerful damage-dealing wizards. This is not true; as accuracy and crit range are equally important to damage potential, and that doesn't even begin to look at other potential scaling points (casting speed? DT reduction?) that all can have a huge impact on damage output Also; at this point calling strength "the damage stat" is speculation at best. You first need to understand that accuracy won't do a thing if your base damage is horrible. DT, right, DT. Especially in a game with a flat damage reduction system, raw damage is essential. So a wizard who focuses on dealing damage will have to invest... *drum roll*.. in the damage stat! In strength. Oh yes, disregarding all the logical implications of the word, all the games that use strength as a damage modifier, defying the unsettling bounds of reason I'm sure strength could be used in PE as a measure of charisma or agility. You can wave your hands, but you're still wrong on this. There are many ways to scale measurable damage. Direct tooltip scaling is only one. Even in situations where your natural attack progression matches the defense of the target you're slinging your spell at, you are going to lose 50% of your up front damage on half of your attacks. This doesn't even get into situations where you are targeting a high defense. This makes accuracy a very powerful damage scaling statistic, especially on more difficult to hit targets. The trade-off here is that on easier to hit targets, direct damage scaling is better, but accuracy is superior against normal to high defense targets. Then there's crit mechanics, which increase your tooltip damage by 1.5x. Anyone who's done any math in 3.0/3.5 DnD knows that you can build serious damage builds around crit mechanics, including many builds that use low base damage weapons and don't stack strength. Ignoring critical hits as a damage scaling mechanic denotes a willful ignorance of the systems you are comparing PE to in the first place. Finally there's DT. Overcoming DT does favor up front damage. But we also know that there are other methods of defeating it. I merely suggest that we may have a stat that influences our ability to overcome DT. Against high DT targets, such a statistic and the stat that governs it will be superior to tooltip damage scaling. This is merely math, and logic. You may not like this style, but so long as this is an internally consistent system that is built into the fiction and mechanics, there is nothing inherently wrong with such a system. You can mask your personal distaste for this in logic, but not when you're choosing to ignore the math they've already given us that would tend to cut against your argument.
  5. Yes, almost.. Apart from the little difference that in the real world holding the "objective" trophy in your hands on the podium doesn't improve your hunting skills at all. The act of hunting itself is what does the job. ... and this totally explains why you can use exp from hunting to raise your diplomacy skill.
  6. Plausible World Fiction Explanation for Using Physical Damage Scaling Stat for Spells: Soul Explanation: Damaging spells we would compare to "evocation" spells in DnD draw their power from the soul of the caster. Souls are complex things; they are the essence of who and what we are, and the measurable dimensions of the soul mirror that of the host vessel. Does the soul determine the physical body? Does the physical body determine the soul? This debate is at the very center of current research into soul magic, and many of the greatest wizards and ciphers disagree as to which part of the whole determines the other. Whatever the case may be, what is known is that those strong of body posses potent souls, and that spells harnessing their soul can overwhelm their targets due to this potency. In a similar fashion, spells from souls of intelligent wizards can be devastating as they are much more easily able to overcome the psych of their target, while souls from those with iron willpower can bypass the physical protection of their target's armor, allowing their spells to damage foes even when their armor and shield would normally provide strong protection from the magical attack. Visceral Casting: Harnessing soul magic is a much more physical act in the world of Project Eternity, as we are not merely tapping into an all encompassing energy, nor are we merely channeling gifts from a divine or fiendish patron. We are fueling magical attacks, which physically manifest in our world with the energy of our own soul. In many ways, this can be compared to "ki" attacks given to martial artists classes in other RPG settings. When we compare the Somatic (that is body movement) component of spell casting in PE to say, DnD there can be a world of difference. DnD rulesets describe the somatic component as only requiring a single free hand to make a few gestures. In PE, we may think of the somatic component as much more physically demanding, with full and forceful movements with much more required effort. It is not at all far fetched to have a physical stat that measures both the effort and force used in a weapon swing, as well the effort and force of projecting your soul energy. It's important to keep in mind that there are many factors that go into damage. Scaling tooltip damage is not the only scaling going on, as your spells will have accuracy checks, crit ranges, and must go through varying amounts of Damage Threshold. Compared to DnD's simple system of Caster level/DC and the poorly implemented Spell Resistance, PE is already offering many more ways to define and build your caster. There will likely be synergies; some spells may scale better with crit chance due to having a higher crit modifier or base crit range (or both!). This is before we even get into any scaling which influences cast times, or number of casts allowed per day. Finally, let us look at the notion that an ingelligent but weak wizard will not be able to be "powerful" due to lack of damage (ignoring for now that I have already provided the other ways such a wizard's damage may be increased). When was a DnD wizard's power ever merely derived from their damage output? Even in cRPG; rest limits/feasibility often makes damage wizards less optimal than sorcerers. Wizard is a control class first, and a dps class second (if we're talking about DnD).
  7. A wizard who wants to do any damage with his spells will have to invest in the damage stat -- strength. Therefore, this negates the existence of physically weak yet powerful damage-dealing wizards. This is not true; as accuracy and crit range are equally important to damage potential, and that doesn't even begin to look at other potential scaling points (casting speed? DT reduction?) that all can have a huge impact on damage output (and which would also allow for some focused strategic choices in spell choice in making a build). There is a lot more to DPS than merely adding to the tooltip damage amount (as again, spells have an accuracy check, can crit, and must go through a damage threshold); and allowing for scaling in many different areas can allow for some very interesting build choices. Frankly, you are being very closed-minded and seem to not be looking at this through any other lens but your DnD experience. Also; at this point calling strength "the damage stat" is speculation at best. All we know about it is that it's called strength, and that it can be increased by purchasing an upgrade to our stronghold (the training yard). Other than that, we know nothing about its function, nor will we until Sawyer pops in and enlightens us, or posts an update on Tuesday explaining the stat system. For all we know, Strength was merely an internal name in use at the time Tim was working on the stronghold system, and may not even be the current name for this stat!
  8. I will compulsively read them. I know this game won't have the intense connection of the flavor items to the story the way Mask of the Betrayer did, as the scope of material will be much broader. Mask had the benefit of being so hyper focused and tuned towards your specific story, and everything you found was related to your curse. It added a level of purpose to all of the flavorful moments, without cramming in some connection to your current activity within the game in some ham-fisted fashion. So while I hope they try to make the fluff relevant... I hope it is done naturally and not merely as a puzzle solving or exp granting mechanism. Books describing the past events in a location I am currently in are always welcome. Books explaining the world found in appropriate areas (mage school has tomes describing and explaining magic concepts, etc), are always welcome.
  9. But on the other hand you prefer "take this if you want to be a magic dude" and "take that if you want to be a scholar dude". How so? People can imagine all sorts of things and make it seem sensible in their heads, especially if it's endorsed by a developer. That's not the point. Wizards are wizards for a reason, fighters are fighters for a reason. Attributes are the skeleton of a character's concept - is he smart, is he strong, is he charismatic.. Why do completely different types of characters, for ridiculously different actions, draw their damage potential from the same attribute? It makes the system banal. "Because less dump stats"? No. If attributes offer universal bonuses for every class, players will soon figure out the best attributes. You'll have a situation with universal dump stats, which is way worse than situational dump stats. They could make a nice attribute system without the universal attribute mumbo-jumbo and avoid dump stats. The answer is: Attribute prerequisites, when it makes sense. Wizard? You want to wear this horribly heavy armor and move around at normal speed and have the standard action speed penalty applied (instead of an increased one)? You need some strength for that. Warrior? You want to pick this powerful ability? You need some intelligence for that. And in PE... Wizards are indeed wizards for a reason. Fighters are also fighters for a reason. There is a LOT more to "damage potential" than measuring a single stat that "universally scales damage"; accuracy and crit range are important too. Not to mention talents, and who's to say at this point what sort of stat gating we will see on those (we've already been given an example of a race/culture gating). I do like that you used the word "potential" however, as there is more to being good at spells and melee than having a decent score in a statistic that measures the effort with which you swing your weapon or project your magic. There's training (represented in the class attack values which can be thought of as similar to BAB tables in dnd), there are specific techniques and abilities you have learned (represented by your abilities and talents) as well. Having a decent score in this stat (we're not sure if it's strength, but that's as good a guess as any right now), merely denotes your potential... that if you had the proper training to actually use a weapon or cast a spell you have the potential to do a bit more damage. Merely having this stat does not suddenly make you "good" at something you have not trained or learned (as compared to strength making you hit harder *and* more often in other systems). A weak yet powerful wizard will exist (sawyer has said as much). But so will an extremely fit, but not overly intelligent wizard. And they will both play differently within the game, while not being garbage choices. This is a good thing. There is nothing any more nonsensical about this than the notion of soul magic, or rangers and their pets sharing a health pool, or any number of other fantasy elements in this setting so long as it is all internally consistent and well presented. What you're describing as an alternative... is 3.5e dnd with Prcs, which I'm sorry never solved any of the problems with that stat system within a cRPG setting. You keep mentioning your frail wizard. No doubt he was weak and frail with a 14-16 constitution for all the sense that makes. With a feat in "toughness" to boot, because you know "weak/frail" but powerful, am I right? *edit* Something else to keep in mind is that attributes do not seem to increase via leveling from anything I have read at this point. This means that by end game they will play a much smaller role than in 3.0/3.5 DnD, where they serve to widen the power gulf over the course of leveling even further. This will increase the importance of being able to understand the stats and their effects right out of the gate, and if there are any talent gates from stats that needs to be viewable from within the character creation menu.
  10. Play mask of the betrayer. Beautifully written evil story arc, without a lot of "i'm going to kick a puppy and demand to get paid for this act of kindness" nonsense. You can fall quite far in Mask, and the ultimate evil ending... is quite a terrifying epilogue that would make you quite the villain for an entire cRPG based around stopping you.
  11. Enough with irrelevant non sequiturs. The problem is not that a stat affects a character in a way "that may not fit my core character concept", but that it affects the character in a nonsensical way. Your analogy (maths, languages) wasn't good. The ability to learn languages and mathematics is a mental ability and therefore it is not such a stretch of imagination that it's tied to intelligence. While yes, intelligent fighters should clearly have an advantage over dumb fighters, that still doesn't mean that strength should augment damage from spells. Charisma is important for bards, obviously. I have no issue in imagining the magic in PE as a very visceral and physically demanding act. I also have no problem imagining an attribute that would govern a characters ability to apply physical force as well as force into their magic. As long as this is presented in a fashion that is internally consistent, it is no more nonsensical to me than the notion of having soul magic in the first place.
  12. My first concern is for a well designed and reasonably balanced and tuned system. My second concern is for an internally consistent system. I tend to agree with this line of reasoning from Josh Sawyer (from his Forumspring account): Sawyer has stated very clearly that stats and RP *will* line up, and that you will be able to play the character you wish (including the dumb brute fighter, the weakling intelligent fighter, etc). I'm very interested in seeing where this is taken in PE. We know there are physical AND mental stats. We know all of ONE stat by name (strength). We know that stats will apply bonuses equally and internally consistently across all classes. We know that there will be a stat that adds accuracy to all attacks, and a stat that adds to magnitude of attacks and spells. Remove the context you cling to from previous systems. Allow some flexibility; this is a fantasy environment. Why should intellect be a measure of your ability to bend the power of your or other souls to your will? Is there no room for a setting where this is a more visceral notion? We are drawing energy from our *souls*, or bending other souls to our design. Can this not be expressed in a physical stat? And we have no reason to assume that this is "strength". All we know is that there apparently is a stat called strength. We have no idea what it does. I find this discussion interesting, but there's quite a lot of closed off ways of thinking.
  13. Just be careful that we are not making assumptions. We know that stats will effect attacks and spells the same, but we do not know that there is only a single damage stat (what if strength and intelligence are both damage stats?). We also don't know how other systems factor into the equation, or what other features of the class system are gated by stats (are there stat requirements to pick up certain talents or abilities? Does actually having a high skill in a skill factor matter more than high stats?). Honestly we don't know much. I wish we knew more. At this point, we don't even have a good reason to assume that strength is the "damage stat" at all.
  14. Abilities have not been presented to us as choices. The wording has always been "At x level, y class gains the ability to z". I believe based on this, as well as the sheer number of abilities they would have to create to function in this way points us towards abilities being hard baked. You pick a class, and you know what your ability toolkit will ultimately look like. That would be unfortunate. Basically having a predetermined character, with a couple of selectable Talents thrown in the mix, is not a good thing. I remember reading that they were experimenting with Talents being available every other level and selectable Abilities (e.g. between 2 options), which would be neat, but can't find the quote. Hallucination maybe. I would be interested if you could find the sourcing on that, as I agree with you that *if* they could offer choice between abilities it would be better in terms of depth.
  15. Do you have a problem internally with having a word "strength" as it applies to both physical strength and mental strength of will? This is a "taste" sort of question. A system that doesn't quite strike your fancy can still make internal sense and be a strong game mechanic. We don't yet know if strength will be the damage stat; it's possible intelligence could be the damage stat. We're flying in the dark on that. So far, the math elements of the mechanics they have given us have been very well thought out and look like strong mechanics. I'm apt to give them a little leeway myself, at least until I can look at the stat system in depth and how it interacts with the other systems (talents, skills, etc).
  16. I think it's important to look at this through what we know about the game mechanics so far: 1. Combat will feature much easier to overcome attack resolution than D20 systems, and ability to hit enemies through defenses for both spells and melee will not be the main build concern in the class system. In DnD 3.0/3.5, your ability to build a character that is useful depends almost entirely on reaching BAB and DC targets within your playing environment (and AC/Save targets as well). Hitting as many of these targets as possible becomes the optimization (or munchkinization) problem to be "solved" in character building, and this is really the only balance factor in splash and multi-class builds. There are racial/alignment restrictions of course... but the proliferation of PRC options has often aimed to break through these whenever possible. 2. Scaling in D20 as you level is very harsh. Small gaps at the lower levels become huge gaps. It's pretty commonly held that things get "silly" in 3.0/3.5 and pathfinder as you round out level 15-20 (and let's not even start on epic levels). Part of this silliness is definitely the gap between the high end and low end of attack values and defense values. When you only have a d20 roll to determine success or failure, and characters likely have a greater than 20 difference in their defense you end up in a lot of "you fail unless you roll a 20" or "you are hit unless I roll a 1". PE is being designed to that numerical advantages and disadvantages are not compounded by leveling. The middle ground will actually be the middle ground, rather than just another word for failure. 3. From everything we know now, there is no multi-classing in PE. So it makes perfect sense that classes will have a bit more flexibility as a result of this. This opens up middle ground for the classes. It's easy to picture a melee wizard mechanically, who may glance more often than a well built fighter, but can somewhat make up for the damage loss by applying some sort of elemental damage buff on hit to his personal weapon, for instance. I think the main thing to keep in mind is that the mechanical structure here is a lot less black and white on what "succeeding at a role" means. How well you perform will be much more muddied, with wider accepted target range for statistics. Abilities have not been presented to us as choices. The wording has always been "At x level, y class gains the ability to z". I believe based on this, as well as the sheer number of abilities they would have to create to function in this way points us towards abilities being hard baked. You pick a class, and you know what your ability toolkit will ultimately look like. I do expect we will see some "secondary or flexible" role abilities. The ones we have been shown are all very "main understood role" related (and we've been shown these abilities specifically for a reason), but I fully expect some off-spec type abilities thrown in. There will be clear mechanical advantages for focus builds on each of the classes. Fighters as tanks, rangers/rogues as DPS, etc. But there will also be a lot of room for variation. I believe that talent and skill choice will be very important, and it will be interesting to see what type of influence or gating on skills/talents comes from our stats.
  17. One of the reasons I was so happy to see this project funded was because this IS Obsidian. They have written some of the most powerful RPG content I've ever experienced. Even tragically flawed games like KOTOR II are filled with... just intensely good writing. They also seem to understand how to actually allow for believable evil characters, and grey choices that feel pained rather than cliche. Others in this thread have mentioned mask of the betrayer; it's the best evil role playing experience ever conceived for a cRPG. You can play a pretty powerful into darkness arc if you go mildly evil in the original campaign and then embrace your inner "devour all the things" in mask. And yet... it actually makes sense! I'm really looking forward to learning the moral codes of the PE universe, and getting set lose to discover our own way forward.
  18. This entire thread makes me curious as to firearms in PE, and how they will fit into the balance curve; so much of the combat mechanics seem built around avoiding spiky unreliable damage... then they throw in the hand cannon.
  19. Okay... so how good is compression? Because to my knowledge, you can compress a texture down to maybe 15% of its uncompressed size, i.e. roughly 7 times smaller. In order to be downloadable the game shouldn't be bigger than 10 GB so that would give us 7 x 10 = 70 maps. That doesn't sound like much at all, and we didn't even consider that music, sounds and voice acting need a lot of space too... That said my calculation is probably completely wrong. EDIT: Actually it sounds about right, though I guess the game could be bigger than 10 GB. I just hope it won't be too much, with my ****ty Wifi connection it takes ages to download 10 GB. Honestly, I think you can get away with 25-30 gig for a download. Storage is cheap, and ever increasing. And bandwidth is cheap, and even regions that still sell service with caps have had significant increases in their caps over the last several years as broadband for media streaming has become expected customer behavior.
  20. I like this. Will we have any UI based indication of our safe stealthing range? Or will you try to provide some contextual clues, while not totally giving us this information?
  21. I find carry weight restriction the best and only thing that can prevent hoarding. For PE, the notion that only a portion of your inventory will be accessible during combat is a way to allow for this, while also letting us indulge in our "pick up all the things" RPG habbits. A lot will depend on what the math on the stash overload penalties end up being, but I applaud the notion that we don't have to fully give up our packrat tendencies to enjoy the tactical depth that combat consumable scarcity provides.
  22. If you're comparing it to D&D, this is a similar progression except for two differences: 1) we maintain differences between classes (given equal level) as an integer rather than as a proportion and 2) because we use a 100 point base scale instead of a 20 point base scale, we have finer control over per-level advancement. E.g. in Pathfinder, a fighter starts with +2 Fort, +0 Ref, +0 Will. They progress like this (Fort/Ref/Will) 5th +4 +1 +1 10th +7 +3 +3 15th +9 +5 +5 20th +12 +6 +6 A rogue starts with +0 Fort, +2 Ref, +0 Will. They progress like this (Fort/Ref/Will) 5th +1 +4 +1 10th +3 +7 +3 15th +5 +9 +5 20th +6 +12 +6 It's a regular progression: they start with an advantage in one (for some classes in D&D, two), and advance at regular intervals. Of course, at high levels this falls apart because the proportional gulf between good and bad saves becomes so wide that characters have to overcompensate or inure themselves to specific effects to avoid being sucker punched. At 1st level, the difference between the good and bad saves is (effectively) 10%. At 10th level, it's 20%. At 20th level, it's 30%. To make matters worse, typically the obvious "good" stats for a given class reinforce the better saves and neglect the worse saves. Fighters often have a high Con, which means they are likely to have an even higher total Fort than normal. They might have a decent Dex which can bolster their Reflex, but it's rare that they have a high Wis (and consequently, Will save). Because save DCs are often balanced around the "hard" targets, it means that the weakest saves of a class combined with the weakest (or least important) ability scores for that class make them really, really vulnerable. This is why Pathfinder has a special Bravery feature for fighters at higher levels -- otherwise they'd run or freeze in terror more than half the time a comparable caster chucked a Will-based fear effect their way. In PE, fighters start with the following defenses: 25 Deflect, 15 Fortitude, 10 Reflexes, 10 Psyche. Rogues start with the following defenses: 15 Deflect, 10 Fortitude, 30 Reflexes, 5 Psyche. Every level, every character gains +3 to all defenses. At 6th level, the fighter would have 40 Deflect, 30 Fortitude, 25 Reflexes, 25 Psyche. The rogue would have 30 Deflect, 25 Fortitude, 45 Reflexes, 20 Psyche. The fighter's worst defenses are still Reflexes and Psyche, but they're only "just as" bad (by the same margin) as they were at 1st level. The same applies to the rogue's Psyche and Fortitude. And while the rogue did "catch up" to where the fighter's Deflection was, the fighter maintains the same 10 point advantage over the rogue that he or she did at 1st level. Of course, Attributes, gear, Talents, Abilities, etc. also can all feed into your defenses, but those are much easier to switch around than your class and level. I.e., if you find yourself particularly vulnerable to a particular type of attack (meaning, what defense it targets), the cause is likely easier to remedy in PE than it would be in D&D (because class is such a large component of that value as levels rise). It would be very nice to be able to shift these defense gains around with the use of "talents" (or whatever else option you'd like). You said you'd have all classes get +3 to all defenses each level. Perhaps it might be interesting (or some players would like to) shift these so each level they get +3 to deflection and reflexes, but +2 to psyche and +4 to fortitude each level, based on a certain way that they intend to play their character. have you thought about doing this? i'd like to play where i can subsubsubspecialize my party as much as possible. at the very least, it'd introduce another strateegic option to players. This isn't necessary, as the +3 per level is only there to denote the level gap itself. This is the mathematical component that makes it harder for a level 1 character of any build to hit a level 10 character of any build. You will have ways to tailor your character to be better in ways you want, however unlike DnD 3/3.5 rule sets this will likely be the result of specific and meaningful choices you make during character advancement; not something that grows in effectiveness while leveling (as the fighter's fort save advantage over a wizard grows in 3.0/3.5 DnD). Once we adjust to the ruleset (which takes time as with all RPG ruleset swaps), I believe this will be a much more intuitive system, and a lot of the underlying math will be easier to intuit even if a player doesn't resort to spreadsheets. 3.0/3.5 DnD has some pretty cool optimization challenges, and character building for those who enjoy gaming out the math to find the optimization points has become a game into itself. I myself enjoy it at times. But it's a system that has some real weaknesses in the role-playing area that were often pasted over with Prc after Prc... which sort of worked, but also fueled further min/maxing silliness. The problem with the D20 system, ultimately, is that weaknesses compound over time. A good tabletop DM can solve a lot of issues; but in a cRGP the math behind DC levels tends to result in "you only hit on a crit" and "you only save on a 1" for non-optimized characters. I'll be glad to see this go away in PE, even if it does cost some of the "me vs the ruleset" optimization fun of 3.5 DnD.
  • Create New...