Jump to content

sophismata

Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sophismata

  1. A hotkey system for skills would be extremely useful. There's a lot of wading around in a very small portion of the interface to access a very significant part of the game's combat.
  2. Someone told me that "Tank, DPS and Support" originated from MUDs. Somewhat true. Most of the early MUD's were attempts to reproduce D&D electronically. They really codified the damage, healing and tanking roles due to the way the encounters worked (where a room of monsters would target and fight only one member of the party). Agreed, I prefer most of the characters to be warrior hybrids. Cipher, Chanter, Cleric, etc.
  3. The Might bonuses are always multipliers, so if it feels like a particular ability or set of abilities does too much damage even when the Might is set very low, the problem is likely with the base damage values on those abilities. I think Infinitron was referring more to the fact that people expect a low attribute to create an incompetency rather than a reduced competency. While I understand you are protecting people from themselves with the current attribute system, there is something to be said for genuine character flaws. As long as the impacts of player decisions are clearly advertised, you can afford to be a little harsher with boni / malus distribution. However, it could just be that people are remembering their 18/00 fighter a tad too fondly, given how much of an outlier ogre strength is in AD&D 2E.
  4. There're a couple of notes to make here. Firstly, choice should mean something. If you choose to focus on might and intelligence, it should affect your game in some visible, significant way. Otherwise the choice is pretty meaningless. Secondly, there should be a real choice. The IE games had false choice: your stats were predicated by your class. A fighter never benefited from a high intelligence. Wizards and thieves could not gain any benefit from constitution scores above 16. And so on. In a class based system, your fighting style will generally be determined by your class and class options. Attributes are there to customise that style. Therefore, the attribute system does not have to accommodate mechanical archetypes - melee wizards, holy warriors, etc. That's the role of the class system. But the choices made to attributes should be felt and they should be genuine choices.
  5. Actually, WotC never introduced such restrictions - they've been in D&D's blood practically since its inception. WotC has removed those restrictions in 5E D&D, though, in part because they are flawed assumptions that don't play out the way you seem to think. For example, in 3.5E D&D a plate-wearing mage is overpowered because he's a mage, not because of his armour (which doesn't matter a whit as being a wizard gives you more defences than armour can ever hope to match). As far as PoE is concerned, there is already an archetype for a melee magic user / assassin class. The lines between class roles and attribute roles are a little blurred for some.
  6. Comparing base damage alone is misleading, it is very important to compare progressive, relative damage values. The framing / reference error is annoying, but ultimately meaningless. Doesn't really affect game-play.
  7. How are people complaining that you cannot make a viable INT/PER/etc fighter while at the same time complaining that attributes don't actually do anything (and a character with 3 everything is viable). Those are contradictory statements. And the IE AD&D games didn't have any attribute choices - if you were a melee fighter you took Str/Con, ranged you took Dex/Con, and if you were a wizard you wanted Int so that you could copy spells. D&D 3.X is worse except for a few MAD builds (which are generally considered weak). Casters go 18 in their primary stat, and the rest in Con; Fighters need Str/Con and then Dex/Wis, Monk is royally screwed in tabletop play but works out in CRPG due to heavy combat focus and lots of helpful custom items. Furthermore, if you are cribbing from D&D, point buy allows a distribution of 8 - 18, not 3 - 18. The +5 difference is pretty large on a d20, but if you were to go 14's across the board the character would still be fairly effective, just not optimal. Excepting spell-casters, of course. Ultimately the impact of attributes in PoE are diluted, and there should probably be a bell curve for the effects of the stats. So that high and low attributes feel more meaningful. In no way is this "fundamentally broken". I think Obsidian should take damage out of the equation altogether, though - too troublesome to deal with unless it's very gently curved. Find another use for Might. In general all builds are working towards dealing damage as this is, at its heart, a tactical combat game. Damage can be sourced more subtly from accuracy, interruption and duration attributes.
×
×
  • Create New...