Yosharian
-
Posts
1284 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Yosharian
-
-
I mean I like all those powers in theory, but I'm already in a spot where I need to reduce my powers a bit so I don't know how I can fit MORE powers in.
Every single power I've taken seems extremely useful and powerful to me
-
20 minutes ago, Haplok said:
Nope.
Btw., no offensive powers on the cipher, just CC?
Not even Disintegrate?
Also I'd push Secret Horrors higher. I'd want to use it ASAP on a CC character.
Well I figured I'd be using all my Focus on my other spells, and be spending Discipline on physical nukes (e.g. Power Strike). I don't have much experience with Cipher lategame because I never really used them a lot.
Which powers would you ditch/keep?
-
Ok, I'll go with Dwarf then.
I have a question, when it comes to determining the Athletics bonus for Contendor's Armor, do points from teammates' Athletics scores count towards that?
-
5 minutes ago, dgray62 said:
How would you reliably trigger Wellspring of Life? Neither fighters nor ciphers have abilities that trigger bodily inspirations for themselves. Unless you plan on having a companion cast an inspiration at the start of each battle, maybe Nature Godlike isn't the best race for this build, as Mepp22 suggested. (edited for accuracy)
Can you recommend a different race? I was considering Dwarf or Human. Constitution affliction resistance seems useful, and the accuracy/defense bonus of Human seems useful too.
-
1 hour ago, mepp22 said:
If you don't want to focus so much on Offensive Parry, then Contender's Armor is much better than Miscreant's Leather. Because of how Armored Grace and or Pets with armor Bonus work you can actually get significantly lower recovery time with high Athletics. Because of this you should choose Laborer as your background. Nomad's Brigandine does offer some cool options but if you plan on casting lots of spells then recovery time is pretty important too(many Cipher spells have long recovery). Also there are much better options than Cloak of Greater Protection. Choosing History instead of intimidate means Gift Bearer's Cloth is directly a better replacement. If you really wanted to go down the Nomad's Brigandine path then I would recommend Ruata's Walking Cloak and taking Survival as your passive skill. I also think you might not need so many active abilities. You can only use one active ability at a time while your passives will help you constantly. Since you are going to be criting an awful lot, The Complete Self might be pretty useful. You can basically end up filling up your Focus by casting spells.
Another thing, I am not sure Nature God Like is the best choice. Is the plus 1 Power level better than being able to wear a helm (especially Helm of the White Void)+ some other racial bonus? For a Monk it might be, but most other classes are better off choosing a different race.I see, I'll check out Contendor's Armor. I'm using Gift Bearer's Cloth on another character. I don't really see what other Cloaks would be suitable. Bonus Stride doesn't seem that useful. And if I'm using Contendor's Armor then I'm maxing Athletics I guess.
I have taken a few too many actives, I guess. I'm not sure which ones to ditch though.
I did consider Helm of the White Void actually.
-
Oh wow. OK, that is interesting.
-
48 minutes ago, Boeroer said:
Using Offensive Parry with 10 RES and without Bracers and Cape of Great Deflection is sacrilege for me.
I'd also use Nomad's Brigandine (immunity to disengagement attacks) to leave potitial flanking situations and at the same time provoke 100% Offensive Parries (which generate focus) as soon as I break disengagement. I could roam the battlefield freely and gain focus just from Offensive Parries and casting lots of Deceptions - no need to actually attack with WotEP (if I didn't want to).
If I were a Fighter handling WotEP I would def. prefer Clear Out over Power Strike. It's cheaper, it procs a cone attack from every attack roll of the AoE (multihits follow) and it interrupts as well so lots of discipline regain should follow. Power Strike doesn't do this. Maybe the higher costs isn't a big issue with a Brillant Tactician though. You decide...
Thanks for the response Boeroer. So I don't have those items equipped because I'm using them on other characters. Offensive Parry is taken purely for the Deflection boost, since I already have very low recovery from Miscreant's Leathers + Armored Grace.
Nomad's Brigandine is too much recovery for this build in my opinion, since a lot of these spells have 3 or 4 second recovery times. Also, the build isn't meant to be the main tank, only off tank. I have Charge and other abilities to help get out of sticky situations when needed.
"provoke 100% Offensive Parries (which generate focus) as soon as I break disengagement" I don't understand this part.
Thanks for the suggestion regarding Clear Out, I'll have a think about that.
-
Not playing on POTD. Using Iron Hammer as main tank. This is an MC build.
QuoteRace: Mountain Dwarf (Constitution affliction resistance, +2 MIG, +1 CON, -1 DEX)
Culture: Old Vailia (+1 INT)
Background: Mercenary (+1 Athletics, +1 Intimidate, +1 Streetwise)
Weapon Proficiencies: Greatsword, PistolAbility Scores:
MIG: 15 -> 19
CON: 05 -> 10
DEX: 13 -> 15
PER: 18 -> 21
INT: 19 -> 22
RES: 08 -> 10
Attribute bonus: Effigy's Resentment (Durance) - +1 CON, +5% max Health
Attribute bonus: Gift from the Machine - +1 MIG, +5% max Health
Attribute bonus: Berath's Blessing - +2 to all attributes
Skills:
Primary: Athletics (Second Wind)
Secondary: Intimidate
Endgame Equipment:
Main Hand: Whispers of the Endless Paths (Reach, cone attack) [Offensive Parry, Run Through]
Ranged: Eccea's Arcane Blaster (Deals Raw damage, Imbued Ammunition)
Armor: Contender's Armor (0% Recovery) [Petrified Wood, Heavy Mobility]
Belt: Girdle of Mortal Protection (+2 CON, 15% incoming crits converted to hits)
Feet: Rakhan Field Boots (+3 Corrode AR, grants No Quarter [Teleport to enemy attack])
Gloves: Gloves Of The Dungeon Warden (+3 ACC, Lockdown ability [stasis for 15sec])
Head: Helm of the White Void (+10 Accuracy to affliction attacks)
Neck: Strand of Favor (+1 INT, -10% hostile effect, +10% friendly effect durations)
Ring1: Ring of Prosperity's Fortune (Increased Hit to Crit chance)
Ring2: Chameleon Ring (+1 MIG, +1 PER, +1 Insight, +1 Athletics)
Shoulders: Cloak of Greater Protection ( +10 Fortitude, Reflex, and Will)
Afflictions/Inspirations:
Might: Resistance (Body Control)
Constitution: Resistance (Mountain Dwarf)
Dexterity: Resistance (Unstoppable)
Perception: Tier3 (Disciplined Strikes)
Intellect: n/a
Resolve: Resistance (Fearless), Tier2 (Unbending Shield)Abilities:
L01 [PL1] Fighter: Disciplined Barrage; Cipher: Eyestrike
L02 Fighter: Knockdown
L03 Cipher: Lingering Echoes
L04 [PL2] Fighter: Two-Handed Style; Cipher: Phantom Foes
L05 Cipher: Draining Whip
L06 Fighter: Psychovampiric Shield
L07 [PL3] Fighter: Disciplined Strikes; Cipher: Puppet Master
L08 Cipher: Secret Horrors
L09 Fighter: Mule Kick
L10 [PL4] Fighter: Weapon Specialization; Cipher: Hammering Thoughts
L11 Fighter: Body Control
L12 Fighter: Fearless
L13 [PL5] Fighter: Unbending; Cipher: Borrowed Instinct
L14 Fighter: Unstoppable
L15 Fighter: Armored Grace
L16 [PL6] Fighter: Clear Out; Cipher: The Empty Soul
L17 Cipher: Mind Plague
L18 Fighter: Superior Deflection
L19 [PL7] Fighter: Unbending Shield; Cipher: Ancestor's Memory
L20 Fighter: Weapon Mastery (modded version, adds +5 accuracy)Thanks for reading
-
So are so few builds on this list that it's laughable. That's not a criticism of the list, though, rather its damning evidence that there is little to no interest in making builds for this game.
-
I hate pre-made modules. They don't match my standards for what constitutes a fleshed out game.
-
Plus if you follow this guide but stay silent for some of the options then you don't get what the guide lists
-
1
-
-
Fury Shaper? Ew.
Are there any other options?
-
You have to restart the game.
-
-
Yes, but ALSO in those games, a Fighter with 12 Str and one with 19, both have the same strength when they equip a Belt of Storm Giant Strength.
-
Favourite improvement: AI management system
Biggest step back: 'no bad builds' attribute system
-
2 hours ago, wih said:
Of course it is a CRPG. I was talking only about its attribute system. What makes a game a CRPG is its writing and the reactivity and some other things of which the attribute system is a small part.
But it's not, because apparently your attributes don't even matter as far as role-playing goes?
Quote: "PoE'sattribute system is a battle system, not RPG system."
-
If you're looking for a more advanced respec than the one the taverns give you, check out the Unity Console mod, which gives you complete control over companion (sub)classes, abilities, attributes, etc.
Also there are some respec mods.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, wih said:
Role playing games like Pillars of Eternity can restrict the attribute scores to more sensible numbers only if they have sensible attribute system from role playing point of view.
They can either do it or not. If the game developers are willing to put in additional work (programming and writing), they can even allow 0-100 attribute scores, where 0 dexterity means the character cannot even move, 0 intellect means the character is not smart enough to breathe and, for example, 1 or 2 constitution means the character dies from illness in the prologue or needs to be on life support for the entire game.
Obviously, this is not very practical for the developers. For example, if the character has 4-5 intellect, writers will be forced to write additional dialogue where the char mainly grunts and NPC's react appropriately to his/her inability to communicate. This additional dialogue will need to be written for each and every conversation in the game.
Therefore the smart thing is to limit the attribute scores and declare that the game will only support these attribute ranges.
For POE it is different. In PoE attribute ranges should not have such sensible limitations. PoE system is mainly created to ensure that every build will be more or less equally viable and that the builds will be balanced in the battles. These are not real world considerations and they do not lead to a realistic RPG system. PoE's attribute system is a battle system, not RPG system.
Intelligent barbarians, mighty wizards, fighters with 3 constitution, extremely agile priests are the result of such a system. Might governs healing, Resolve governs deflection, Perception governs accuracy. You cannot have anything approaching RPG realism with such a system. Not that the system is bad, but it had different goals.
So, if PoE developers try to limit the attribute ranges to some sensible values, this will be a huge problem, because the system is not sensible from role playing point of view. Players will be extremely angry, because many have stopped to select the attribute scores for RPG purposes and are mainly selecting them based on the battle mechanics.
So essentially, PoE is not a CRPG?
I don't know about that.
-
12 hours ago, Boeroer said:
Dropping stats below 10 - let's say from 10 to 5 - has actually more impact in Deadfire than dropping them from 15 to 10 (in some/most cases). It's both 5 points, but as soon as you drop below 10 and create actual maluses they will go through double inversion which means the actual malus is a lot higher. MIG is a good example. DEX, too.
Interesting. Can you be specific on which attributes are affected and which aren't?
-
33 minutes ago, Boeroer said:
"A character that is crippled is literally incapable of doing the things your character does in Pillars & Deadfire.
In this case your argument can be reduced to 'the numbers can mean anything you want', which doesn't seem to be a very good role-playing system to me.
I'm not arguing for the 'removal of fixed boundaries'."
@Yosharian: It was an example how a lower boundary restricts you from roleplaying and does not foster it. You mustn't split hairs.
And the numbers can mean anything you want, but that was not was I was saying. I wrote that the numbers mean what the designer wants them to mean. So if a 3 in PoE means "he's dumb but can manage" and the same goes for a 7 in Pathfinder then what's the problem with the 3 unless it hurts your aestehtic feeling for numbers?
I didn't suggest in any way that you are arguing for the removal of fixed boundaries. I am though.
Oh, well if your argument is that 3 in Pillars is equivalent to 7 in Pathfinder then yes, I concede that that's entirely reasonable. That's one of the things I mentioned in the post. Or, I thought I did. But yes, that's reasonable, if that's what 3 means. I'm just not certain that that's what it means.
I'm going through Josh's GDC talk now. I'm sure he mentioned something specific about this.
Edit: ok so actually at the moment he references a Perception of 3, he only says 'that's the lowest it can be', he doesn't go into detail about what that 3 actually means.
I updated my post to include your point. I concede that yes, it does indeed offend my aesthetic feeling for numbers.
-
15 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:
The main problem is that really low values very rarely have the penalties they should have in CRPGs, except for maybe strength in the sense that your carrying capacity will be minimal. This makes min-maxing possible. I find min-maxing ethically dubious, so I never do it. I find values under 8 to be extremely undesirable, except for well-justified role-playing reasons.
An example about the lack of penalties: if you make your character as stupid as possible, you will still have all the discussions with NPCs that you normally have, even if you shouldn't be able to. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
> This makes min-maxing possible.
This assumes that you can't min-max if such very low values are unavailable. If the minimum for a given attribute is 7, I can still min-max, just within a smaller (more sensible) range.
I agree that in strict role-playing, a value of 7 is really quite challenging to role-play. That's why I think 7 is a great number to restrict players to. It still presents challenging role-play opportunities for those that seek it, and it allows min-maxers to do their thing. But it isn't absurd, actually-impossible-to-role-play like a value of 3 is.
> An example about the lack of penalties: if you make your character as stupid as possible, you will still have all the discussions with NPCs that you normally have, even if you shouldn't be able to.
Well, that's exactly the same example I gave, but yes, exactly.
> I find min-maxing ethically dubious,
Are you sure you meant ethically dubious?
-
51 minutes ago, Boeroer said:
- No
- There is the limit of 3
-
PoE does use a sensible number. 3 is a sensible number. It all boils down to "what does a score of X mean?" - and that's described during character creation. In this case "3" can translate to a "7" in Pathfinder. The number system itself doesn't matter. You could have used a system that uses numbers from -10 to 10 to describe a stat as INT "as dumb as it gets" up to "genius". If Pathfinder chooses that 7 is the dumbest a character can be then fine. Lower than 7 then maybe means you wouldn't survive on your own if that was your permenent INT. PoE chose that 3 is that number. The removal of fixed boundaries doesn't prevent anybody from roleplaying. That argument is moot. What if you want to roleplay a crippled character - but you can't because DEX is fixed at 7 (meaning really clumsy but not crippled)? You can't then. Restrictions only restrict your roleplaying. THey don't make it better all of a sudden.
Usually there are sound mechanical reasons why stats are restricted (see 35 as max in Deadfire now). But roleplaying reasons? Nay...
A character that is crippled is literally incapable of doing the things your character does in Pillars & Deadfire.
In this case your argument can be reduced to 'the numbers can mean anything you want', which doesn't seem to be a very good role-playing system to me.
I'm not arguing for the 'removal of fixed boundaries'.
-
TL;DR: other role-playing games and role-playing systems restrict their characters to reasonable attributes when creating a character, for example having lower limits of 7 points for a given attribute. Should games like Pillars of Eternity also have such restrictions, in order to promote role-playing and prevent absurd ludonarrative dissonance? Or is it perfectly fine and desirable for players to be able to create characters with the intelligence of a brick?
A Short Preface
I've been playing Pathfinder Kingmaker recently, and noticed that in character creation, you are limited to a minimum base value of 7. I'm normally a pretty extreme min-maxer in CRPGs, so I was quite surprised by this. It got me thinking: why are we allowed to choose values as low as 3 in games like Pillars? So I decided to write up my thoughts. I'm interested to hear what the Pillars community thinks about this. I'm guessing there will be strong resistance, but I'm not certain. Well, on with the
postessayfreaking novel.Attributes/Ability Scores In Detail
So in Pillars 1 and Deadfire there are a range of attributes that you can choose at character creation. You can choose from a range of 3-18 for any given attribute. It could be speculated that such values originate from the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing system, where a similar set of values exist. The Pathfinder system is derived from D&D 3.5. Thus, I believe it's useful to look at the descriptions for attribute levels to get an idea for what these numbers are meant to represent. However, I do so with the disclaimer that these aren't actually from Deadfire or Pillars 1 themselves (which shall henceforth be referred to as 'the Pillars system' for brevity), and thus they may not correspond exactly with what Obsidian had in mind when they picked the numbers 3-18. I think they are accurate enough, and serve as a useful guide.
An Average Score
10 could be seen as an average score for characters in the Pillars system. It definitely is in D&D/Pathfinder. The D20PFSRD (a reference website for Pathfinder, link here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores/ ) has this to say about average scores:
- 10 Strength: an average Human. Can literally pull their own weight.
- 10 Dexterity: capable of usually catching a small tossed object, average human agility
- 10 Constitution: occasionally contracts mild sicknesses, average human healthiness
- 10 Intelligence: knows what they need to know to get by.
- 10 Wisdom: capable of planning and makes reasoned decisions most of the time
- 10 Charisma: understands most conventions of social interactions and acts relatively acceptably in social circumstances.
For those that are unfamiliar with D&D, Wisdom determines the Perception skill in D&D, so Pillar's Perception attribute could be seen as equivalent to D&D's Wisdom (though the comparison breaks down a little once you factor in accuracy).
Similarly, Pillar's Resolve functions similarly to D&D's Charisma, in that it determines "mental intimidation, leadership, and convincing performances." (Source: https://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Attributes.) (Again, the comparison breaks down a little if you examine it in detail, but broadly speaking they have more similarities than differences)
So 10 could be seen as an average score for a human, and it's not unreasonable to presume that such a statement could be accurate for Pillars' system too.
Character Creation Maximums
In D&D, the maximum possible score at character creation is 18, before modifiers. This corresponds exactly with the Pillars system. The D20PFSRD has this to say about such scores:
- 18 Strength: same as a Centaur. Can break objects like wood with bare hands.
- 18 Dexterity: better than an Octopus. Light on feet, able to often hit small moving targets at a distance.
- 18 Constitution: same as a Polar Bear. Able to stay awake for days on end.
- 18 Intelligence: better than a Succubus. Genius-level intelligence, may invent new processes or uses for knowledge.
- 18 Wisdom: perhaps equivalent to a monk, or wise guardian. Often looked to as a source of wisdom or as a counselor.
- 18 Charisma: perhaps equivalent to a Siren, or similar creature. Immediately likeable by many people, subject of favorable talk.
So 18 could be seen as the most powerful score a normal human could achieve. Of course, the abstraction breaks down somewhat when you consider that in both the Pillars and D&D 3.5/Pathfinder systems, adventurers can achieve scores well above these 'maximums'; in fact, it's possible to reach scores of 50+ by the time a character reaches 20th level in D&D 3.5/PF, and in the Pillars system the attribute cap is 35.
However, the fact remains that 18 was selected as the standard maximum for the Pillars system, and it stands to reason that this was done for a reason - to represent the most powerful score a normal human could achieve. Scores above these can be seen as adventurers acquiring skills, attributes, legendary artifacts, etc, that place them well above what any normal human could achieve - putting them closer to gods, than normal humans. This makes sense when you consider that your heroes are meant to be saving the world, defeating incredible enemies, etc.
Character Creation Minimums
This is where the interesting part comes in. To begin, let's look at the descriptions for D&D ability scores, for the minimum scores available in the Pillars system, which is 3, or 2 after modifiers:
- 2-3 Strength: no description, but somewhere between "Needs help to stand, can be knocked over by strong breezes" and "Knocked off balance by swinging something dense". Similar to a monstrous centipede.
- 2-3 Dexterity: similar to a sea urchin. Incapable of moving without great effort.
- 2-3 Constitution: no equivalent creature listed, but a fair bit worse than a toad or hedgehog. Frail, suffers constant illnesses.
- 2-3 Intelligence: similar to a dog, or horse. Animal-level intelligence, acts mostly on instinct but can be trained.
- 2-3 Wisdom: similar to a semi-sentient fungal creature. Rarely notices important or prominent items, people, or occurrences.
- 2-3 Charisma: same as a lizard, or crocodile. Capable of only minimal independent decision-making.
So if we look at these descriptions, we can see that these scores are astoundingly bad for any adventurer or heroic (or villainous) type. These are bad enough to make 'saving the world' or 'defeating incredible enemies' pretty much impossible. With some of these scores, it might be possible to still be a heroic character or adventurer if one were led around and commanded by a smarter ally, in the manner of a glorified pet, or the like, but arguably it would the victory of the commander, rather than the pet.
Again, these are descriptions based off a different role-playing system to the Pillars one, but I think it's reasonable to speculate that they are fairly accurate. Also, let's bear in mind that it's likely that the minimum base value 3 was chosen by Pillars' designers because it represents the lowest roll one can achieve with 3d6 (and 18 the maximum), another nod to D&D roots.
Note: Boeroer makes the point that he thinks a 3 in the Pillars system is equivalent to a 7 in the Pathfinder system. I don't buy that, personally, but it's a reasonable point. The reason I'm not convinced is because it doesn't make sense from an overarching perspective. If the range of values is from 0 (non-functional, dead, cannot exist) to 10, and 10 is average, I don't buy that 3 is the lower limit for a character that can still be an effective adventurer, because there is a huge gulf between 'competent adventurer' and 'dead/non-functional/cannot exist', but only values of 1, 2 and 3 span that gulf, in Boeroer's explanation. I concede that, as Boeroer says, it 'hurts my aesthetic feeling for numbers.'
Averages, Maximums and Minimums?
So it could reasonably be argued that 10 represents an average score, and 18 represents the very best humanity could offer, perhaps one-in-a-million genius, or strong-man, or charismatic leader, etc. What does 3 represent? Does it really represent the worst humanity could offer? And, could a character with such a score actually be a hero, or adventurer?
Let's take Eder as an example. Eder has the following attributes in Pillars of Eternity: Mig: 16 Con: 16 Dex: 11 Per: 12 Int: 10 Res: 13.
So Eder is really strong, and has a great constitution. He "carries heavy objects with one arm" and "easily shrugs off most illnesses". This all sounds like the Eder we know, and is within the realms of possibility for a relatively rare adventurer type. But what if Eder had an Intellect of 3?
[Josh Sawyer himself talks about this extensively in his GDC 2016 talk about 'attribute tuning'. You can see more info here: https://rpgcodex.net/article.php?id=10263. What I find interesting is where he talks about the 'weirdness' of players choosing to lower attribute scores to extreme levels. I find this interesting, because he, as one of the game's most prominent designers, chose to give players the option of reducing attributes to extremely low numbers, then reacted with surprise when players showed a desire to reduce companion attributes to... extremely low numbers!]
Pathfinder Point-Buy systems, and Pathfinder Games
Pathfinder has a Point-Buy system that allows you to 'purchase' ability scores for a certain amount of points, with the points per character being static, similar to the Pillars system. (Each point is worth a different amount, with the purchase of an 18 score being much more expensive than a 12, for example, but that's not relevant to this discussion.)
In most versions of this 'point-buy', you're restricted to a minimum of 7 in any ability score, before modifiers. You'll notice that that's much higher than many low 3d6 rolls (3, 4, 5 and 6 are all possible), and much higher than the minimum score available in the Pillars system.
You can see for yourself by visiting a Pathfinder ability score calculator such as the one here: http://www.jody-white.com/pathfinder-ability-score-calculator.php
This system is used in some Pathfinder Pen And Paper ('PnP') games, such as Pathfinder Society (which strictly regulates what characters can and cannot be made, for balance purposes), and also some Pathfinder games, such as the recently released Pathfinder Kingmaker. Other times, 3d6 rolls are used, or sometimes there are other hybrid systems, but point-buy is commonly accepted as a means of character ability score generation.
Why Have A Minimum of 7?
Why have a minimum set so high? Well, the most logical reason stems from the PnP roots of Pathfinder. How, exactly, do you role-play a character with 3 Intelligence, in a PnP game? Let's remind ourselves that 2-3 Intelligence in Pathfinder equates to intelligence 'similar to a dog, or horse; animal-level intelligence, that acts mostly on instinct but can be trained.'
In fact, such a thing is determined to be effectively impossible to do within standard expectations. Of course, any PnP Dungeon Master, or Game Master, may operate their table however they wish, and may choose to allow characters with ability scores below base 7. But, the standard point-buy system chooses to restrict players to 7 or upwards (with the caveat that race modifiers may, of course, lower values below 7).
What About CRPGs?
This gets even worse when you consider CRPGs, where the freedom to role-play a character with the intellect of a brick is most likely not possible at all. In Pillars, for example, your characters talks the same no matter what Intellect score they have. 3, or 18, the result is the same; with the exception of special options that are occasionally available, your character will speak with the same level of intellect, charisma and wisdom.
Of course, such role-play might take place in the mind of the player, rather than in the actual events and dialogue happening on-screen, and for some this may be enough. But even they would surely be forced to admit that such a thing requires considerable mental gymnastics; role-playing a sub-brick character when the dialogue, events, and actions in the game contradict that at every turn, isn't easy, nor desirable.
Mechanics and Role-Playing Systems Working Together
It's often the case that mechanical and role-playing systems run up against each other, both from a development perspective and a player perspective. I believe that in a well-designed game, they should complement each other, and work in sync to create a great player experience.
For example, if I decide that my character needs a high Wisdom to be a D&D Cleric, and then in-game there is lots of role-playing interactivity for high Wisdom characters, such as special dialogues, Wisdom checks, and so on, then that's an example of a mechanical system (Wisdom required to be a Cleric) working in concert with a role-playing system (Wisdom is recognised by the game in the form of special dialogues, checks, etc) to create a great player experience. My character has a high Wisdom because he needs it to be a good Cleric, but also it's part of his character. That's a strong experience for the player.
Another example could be, in Fallout 1, a player might choose to divert S.P.E.C.I.A.L. points from Intelligence into other areas, such as Strength. The mechanical reasoning is: I want my character to be strong, and I don't care about Intelligence too much. But in Fallout 1, as many of you are I'm sure aware, there are actual dialogue changes for characters with low intelligence:
QuoteWhen the player character in Fallout and Fallout 2 has less than 4 Intelligence, the biggest change in gameplay is undoubtedly the dialogue. Upon reaching Shady Sands, the villagers take pity on the Vault Dweller, and Aradesh will simply shrug them off. The best they can speak is half-word sentences or gibberish.
The real downside, though, is the nigh impossibility to do about 90% of the side quests. No one will talk to a moron or even give them the time of day.
In Fallout 2, the Chosen One may meet Torr, the "town simpleton of Klamath," who would normally give them a quest to help protect his brahmin against "the evil bugmen." If the player character has low Intelligence, however, he will appear to be highly intelligent as if being stupid has a culture and language of its own. Two flat-headed people can have a complete, thought-provoking, and fully articulated conversation between them.
Another person one may have an "intelligent" conversation with in Fallout 2 is AHS-9, who becomes able to understand what the Chosen One tries to say after the alignment, and gives the quest to kill the Shi Emperor.
When talking to Algernon in the basement of New Reno Arms, the Chosen One can start a childhood "cop and robbers" type dialog in which they accidentally "shoot" and kill him.
A character with a low Intelligence is unable to gamble. When they observe a roulette table or a slot machine, the character will respond to it as a fun toy or an interactive character, respectively. Visiting a craps table will result in a dumb Chosen One commenting to the dealer that they "play craps in pants".
Source: https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Intelligence
This opens up an entirely new way to play the game. It's another example of a mechanical system (player can spend points in various attributes the way they wish, including lowering certain attributes all the way to 1) working in concert with a role-playing system (player characters with low intelligence have certain restrictions and special interactivity in the game). They work together to create a very special player experience. Now this is an extreme example, but you get the idea. Certain games have explored this in a much more limited fashion, such as Fallout: New Vegas, but at least the attempt is made.
Thus, a player choosing to reduce Intelligence for mechanical reasons, also has to contend with the fact that the role-playing systems in the game will be affected by this. This is a meaningful player experience.
Mechanics vs Role-Playing: Acting In Opposition
So let's explore some examples where the systems work in opposition. That is to say, a mechanical system gives you an option, and when you take that option, it runs completely in contradiction to role-playing systems set up within the game.
For example, let's make a character in Pillars of Eternity that has an Intellect score of 3 (referred to as Sub-Brick from now on). If we take the D20PFSRD description of 3 Intelligence: similar to a dog, or horse. Animal-level intelligence, acts mostly on instinct but can be trained. Even if you don't agree that that's accurate for the Pillars system, let's at least agree that an Intellect of 3 in Pillars is really.... really dumb. Like, extreme-level mentally challenged.
Now Pillars of Eternity has many role-playing systems that provide interactivity with player characters that have high ability scores. High Resolve scores grant opportunities to role-play as a forceful, charismatic, 'force of personality'-type. High Perception scores grant opportunities to role-play as a perceptive, observant character who sees things that others miss. So Pillars sets itself up as a game in which attribute scores matter, from a role-playing perspective.
Yet also within this game, Sub-Brick is able to converse readily with the people of Eora quite happily. He can solve problems, complete quests, hunt bad guys, make alliances, etc etc, just as easily as a character with 10 Intellect can. None of his dialogue is affected, and his ability to reason, problem-solve, and so on is completely unaffected.
So, the mechanical system (you can reduce an attribute score to 3 and use those points to raise other attributes) runs in direct opposition to the established role-playing systems (attribute scores are supposed to be a core part of your character).
The Solution
A score of 7, no matter the attribute, is enough to act as a penalty, without reducing characters to the comical ineptitude of Sub-Brick. On the D20PFSRD, 7 Dexterity, for example, is described as: "Significant klutz or very slow to react." 7 Intelligence is described as: "Seems to have almost no common sense." These aren't too extreme for such characters to conceivably be able to perform heroic acts, and basically save the world, as is usually the plot in such games, while still providing players with the freedom to reduce certain attributes for whatever reason they see fit.
If players are restricted to a minimum of 7, before modifiers, it would help resolve a lot of the mechanics vs role-playing contradictions that I see in games such as Pillars of Eternity.
Freedom vs Role-Playing?
Of course, with such a restriction, comes a loss of freedom. Some players will argue that they should be able to manipulate their attribute scores as they see fit, and damn the role-playing.
However, I would point out that limitations already exist in the game. For example, I cannot play Pillars of Eternity as a fish: I cannot choose the race 'fish' for my character. Why should I be restricted from playing as a fish, if I so desire? Does it impact on other, anti-fish advocates, if I have the option of playing as a fish?
Of course, the proposition seems utterly absurd. Yet, are we really going to say that playing as a fish is absurd, while also proclaiming that saving the world as Sub-Brick is not? If you think critically on the question, it is just as absurd for Sub-Brick to defeat Thaos Ix Arkannon, as it is for Plopper The Finned One, Fish Barbarian, to achieve the task.
To use a less extreme example: the game already defines the limits of attribute scores as between 3-18. So limitations clearly exist. Why 3? Why 18? If we don't choose limits based on what seems logical and reasonable for the character we are playing, then why have limits at all? Why not allow any number, as low as 1 and as high as 35? If you agree that the limits exist to make characters reasonable representations of potential game characters, then it seems highly reasonable to me that the lower limit should be 7.
The Question
- Should role-playing games like Pillars of Eternity restrict attribute scores during character creation to more sensible numbers?
- If so, is a lower limit of 7 the most reasonable choice?
- If not, why not?
If you made it this far, thanks for reading!
PS: you win one internet if you're cool enough to recognise the Fallout: New Vegas reference
Please critique my Tactician/Beguiler build:
in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Characters Builds, Strategies & the Unity Engine (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
Well, I figured Charge will help me interrupt enemies when I'm not near them, maybe I can't get to them in time to use Mule Kick. I get Discipline back from Interrupts. Secondly, I thought Charge would be useful to escape bad situations since I don't want to be flanked and I'm not going to have Disengagement immunity.