Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Might is botched the same way as in PoE1


  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#41
Mikeymoonshine

Mikeymoonshine

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 324 posts
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
I recall in the beta at one point might was replaced with strength and resolve controlled magic but it didn't work out well. I don't remember if that was their initial plan if it was maybe that's why some of the might checks are written like physical strength checks.

To be honest I don't know why they kept in so many stat checks when there is that whole skill system with multiple different skills just for checks. Athletics would cover these all. So yeah I agree that it's an annoying oversight that should be solved by now.

#42
asnjas

asnjas

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 128 posts
How is this might check wrong? If might is both physical and metaphysical strength than the check is accurate cause carrying someone down a ship is a test of physical strength.

Two different interpretations of might and one was used. Because that interpretation doesnt match your character then there needs to be a problem?

I think the game has two interpretations of the aggressive disposition: cruel and merciless and the second is acting first/jumping to action. They are not the same and a charqcter can be based on one or the other. Is it a cause for conplaint if my chaotic good character that springs to action is given a cruel and merciless aggressive disposition option?
  • wih likes this

#43
rjshae

rjshae

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 5055 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Adapt.



#44
Ophiuchus

Ophiuchus

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 342 posts
  • Deadfire Backer

Your sorcerous power is so great – you lend your arms inhuman strength! You bend that mundane physical reality with the true might! Yet things requiring specialized training and knowledge of the tricks of the trade, that cannot be brute-forced, elude your grasp, you'll have to train Athletics for that. Also, little known fact, aumaua and dwarves have an innate talent for sorcery!

Not gonna lie: I read that as a motivational speech you'd find in an anime.


  • Franknstein and Frak like this

#45
Boeroer

Boeroer

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 14436 posts
  • Location:Bucharest, Romania
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

How is this might check wrong? If might is both physical and metaphysical strength than the check is accurate cause carrying someone down a ship is a test of physical strength.

Two different interpretations of might and one was used. Because that interpretation doesnt match your character then there needs to be a problem?

I think the game has two interpretations of the aggressive disposition: cruel and merciless and the second is acting first/jumping to action. They are not the same and a charqcter can be based on one or the other. Is it a cause for conplaint if my chaotic good character that springs to action is given a cruel and merciless aggressive disposition option?

Don't know if it's "wrong", but the better way to do this would have been a check of Athletics, not MIG.

 

Because you can play a mighty (high MIG) yet physically weak (low Athletics) character. And then carrying somebody with your MIG is kind of weird. Also because Josh said at some point that this could be avoided with the new skillset. I mean there was a reason why we have many more of them on Deadfire compared to PoE.

 

Iirc the intention was to use the attributes as underlying base for certain mechanics but mainly the skills for dialogue/scripted checks. Implementing a MIG check where Athletics would be more appropriate is a mistake - albeit a minor one and understandable.

 

With the same argumentation you could ask why certain races or cultures get a MIG bonus or malus. You could say because they are ohysically stronger (and that's a part of MIG) it's ok that they receive a general bonus. Maybe if it was only Strength their bonus should be even higher... so an "averaged" bonus of +2/+1 etc. is ok? Or you leave MIG as is, give them a bonus/malus to CON and to Athletics and balance that out with some other skill bonuses/maluses. FOr example I'm sure an Orlan has advantages when it comes to stealth while an Aumaua has advantages when it comes to Intimidating. And so on...


  • Woopee likes this

#46
Yglika

Yglika

    (0) Nub

  • Initiates
  • 3 posts

OP wants to play a character with magic who is weak physically. It is bad that there are still checks that treat Might as a physical stat. However OP can just skip those faulty dialog options and pretend that they are not meant for their character. Roleplaying involves many things and deciding which dialog options make sense for your character is one of them.

 

Sadly not. There are two (three in fact) inherent flaws with it.

 

1. There is now no way to act as mighty (meaning powerful in magic) mage in dialogs. Only as _physically mighty_ warrior.

 

2. I now can clearly see the game thinks my might stat is a physical feat. I can safely assume any NPC behavior towards me will be based on that and I will be perceived by NPCs as physically strong. This is something what irritates me most.

 

Bonus 3. Your suggestion is nice but does not work in reality. A mere existence of such options for my char ruins my immersion. It's like saying we can forget all stats and offer _all_ options in dialogs, because well... if people think some is not good for their char, they can just ignore it. :-P


  • Woopee likes this

#47
asnjas

asnjas

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 128 posts
Am i missing something? That first event carrying the lady down from the boat is athletics check.
  • draego likes this

#48
Woopee

Woopee

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 17 posts

It is kind of weird that physical strength and metaphysical strength are governed by the same stat. Like Yglika said, you can't be a weak mage with strong magic anymore. 



#49
Boeroer

Boeroer

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 14436 posts
  • Location:Bucharest, Romania
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

That I don't think is weird. It's an abstraction and it would work pretty well if checks would aim at Athletics and not MIG if it's about physical strength. 


Edited by Boeroer, 08 February 2019 - 10:56 AM.


#50
Jayd

Jayd

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 44 posts

That I don't think is weird. It's an abstraction and it would work pretty well if checks would aim at Athletics and not MIG if it's about physical strength. 

It is weird because then it would technically be athletics that should govern how hard you can swing a sword. It's weird that you can have people deal huge blows with a morning star but can't lift a log or climb a rope. The root of the problem is that effectively swinging heavy objects requires athletic conditioning while casting spells presumably does not.

 

That said, I think it's something we ought to just overlook in order to enjoy the great balancing benefits it brings. Or, if that's impossible, head canon the fact that magic is physically taxing in this universe so people need strong bodies to channel powerful magic. (It would have been easy and nice if the developers had made this canon from the beginning so we could avoid these threads however many years later.)


Edited by Jayd, 09 February 2019 - 03:50 PM.

  • Aoyagi likes this

#51
Crucis

Crucis

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1537 posts

Eh...I remember in IWD there was a WISDOM stat which, if im not mistaken, was taking care of spell's power. And if i remember well, in some cases, it was replacing Priest's STRENGTH using melee weapons...

 

 

 

...it was sooooo long ago...

 

Wisdom affected the power of a Cleric's or Druid's spells, while Intelligence affected the power of a Wizard's spells.  That seems to make more sense to me.  Of course, with the current 6 attributes in PoE1&2, there really isn't a parallel to Wisdom, so I think that we'd be left with using INT for Priest and Druid spells as well.  Ditto for Ciphers and Chanters.  Or possibly a mix of Perception and Intelligence.

 

If I had my druthers, Might should just equate to raw physical strength.  And part of me would prefer to see accuracy be a more fluid thing.  That is, rather than strictly basing it on perception, maybe have it be split into ranged accuracy and melee accuracy.  Ranged accuracy might be perception based. And melee accuracy could be split between either being Might or Dex based.  Light weapons (i.e. rapiers, daggers, stilettos, and fists) might be Dex based, while all other weapons might be Might based.  This sort of split would be an incentive to build a wider variety of characters, rather than having it seem like all characters desperately need perception to get good accuracy across the board.  It might also be interesting is weapons had strength requirements or penalties associated with them.  Light weapons would have no penalty, while heavier weapons might have a penalty to accuracy linked to how heavy the weapon was felt to be by the devs.  Medium weapons, i.e. one handers, might have only a minimal to moderate penalty, while heavy weapons, i.e. most two handers, might have higher strength penalties.  Staffs might not have such a high penalty, since most staffs I'd think would be made of wood rather than metal.   

 

And arguably, I could see crossbows and regular bows having strength penalties too.  For crossbows and arbalests, the penalty would be reflecting the weight of the crossbow and the user's ability to lift it and hold it in the firing position while aiming it.  Heavy arbalests might be more difficult to hold on target than lighter regular crossbows.  And with regular bows, the strength penalty would reflect the strength of the bow's draw.

 

Anyways, I seriously doubt that any of this would ever get into the game, so what I've written is just what I'd like to see but don't ever expect to see.



#52
asnjas

asnjas

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 128 posts
Yea might shouldnt effect caster damage but gun damage is ok. Right....

And why would might effect melee weapon accuracy? When i hit an axe against a log, whenther or not i hit the spot i intend to has nothing to do with my physical strength.

I swear people cling to their anti might bias like nothing i ever seen. It makes sense. It aint perfect implemented in game thats all. The flaws have nothing to do with might. You dont have weak but powerful mages lifting boulders down a ladder unless you chose that option. You have physically powerful barbarians lifting boulders down ladders.

I mean really. Things are not perfect and go both ways. Just like the example earlier of aggression doesnt have to equal violent. The game offers many options to be aggressively violent but you dont have to chose them if you char aint the violent type. Jesus.

Edited by asnjas, 10 February 2019 - 11:15 PM.


#53
Crucis

Crucis

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1537 posts

Yea might shouldnt effect caster damage but gun damage is ok. Right....

And why would might effect melee weapon accuracy? When i hit an axe against a log, whenther or not i hit the spot i intend to has nothing to do with my physical strength.

I swear people cling to their anti might bias like nothing i ever seen. It makes sense. It aint perfect implemented in game thats all. The flaws have nothing to do with might. You dont have weak but powerful mages lifting boulders down a ladder unless you chose that option. You have physically powerful barbarians lifting boulders down ladders.

I mean really. Things are not perfect and go both ways. Just like the example earlier of aggression doesnt have to equal violent. The game offers many options to be aggressively violent but you dont have to chose them if you char aint the violent type. Jesus.

 

No, it shouldn't affect … AFFECT … gun damage either.  Why would strength AFFECT melee weapon accuracy?  Your strength would AFFECT your ability to wield a heavy weapon easily.  Take a weak person and give them a greatsword and they'll be lucky to get it over their head, let alone swing it, let alone swing it with any degree of accuracy.  Strength affects your ability to wield melee weapons and swing them at all and to swing them with some accuracy.  And the stronger you are, the lighter some weapons will feel and the more dexterously you'll be able to wield them.

 

As for swinging an ax, if you don't have the strength to lift the ax, you're not swinging it at all.  If you have enough strength to wield it with a degree of nimbleness, it most certainly will AFFECT your ability to hit where you intend.  Obviously, skill has something to do with it too, but that's factored into each character's level.

 

As for "anti-might bias", maybe we cling to it because we think that it's stupid.  (Right up there with not knowing the difference between "affect" and "effect".)



#54
xzar_monty

xzar_monty

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 546 posts

<unable to delete post; ignore>


Edited by xzar_monty, 11 February 2019 - 04:03 AM.


#55
beastsman

beastsman

    (0) Nub

  • Initiates
  • 1 posts

I tell you why the stat is botched.

Its because Obsidian does crossfit, and you know what that is?

its kind of like body building, but you do everything wrong.


Edited by beastsman, 11 February 2019 - 12:54 PM.


#56
Cartoons Plural

Cartoons Plural

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 80 posts

It's clearly not minor to the TC or many others who have created such threads. Is it really your place to tell a consumer how to feel?


yes. please stop acting like every consumers reaction is fair, informed or important

#57
Verde

Verde

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1369 posts
  • Steam:DragonSoundxSG

It's clearly not minor to the TC or many others who have created such threads. Is it really your place to tell a consumer how to feel?

yes. please stop acting like every consumers reaction is fair, informed or important

But money does talk.

#58
asnjas

asnjas

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 128 posts

Yea might shouldnt effect caster damage but gun damage is ok. Right....

And why would might effect melee weapon accuracy? When i hit an axe against a log, whenther or not i hit the spot i intend to has nothing to do with my physical strength.

I swear people cling to their anti might bias like nothing i ever seen. It makes sense. It aint perfect implemented in game thats all. The flaws have nothing to do with might. You dont have weak but powerful mages lifting boulders down a ladder unless you chose that option. You have physically powerful barbarians lifting boulders down ladders.

I mean really. Things are not perfect and go both ways. Just like the example earlier of aggression doesnt have to equal violent. The game offers many options to be aggressively violent but you dont have to chose them if you char aint the violent type. Jesus.


No, it shouldn't affect … AFFECT … gun damage either. Why would strength AFFECT melee weapon accuracy? Your strength would AFFECT your ability to wield a heavy weapon easily. Take a weak person and give them a greatsword and they'll be lucky to get it over their head, let alone swing it, let alone swing it with any degree of accuracy. Strength affects your ability to wield melee weapons and swing them at all and to swing them with some accuracy. And the stronger you are, the lighter some weapons will feel and the more dexterously you'll be able to wield them.

As for swinging an ax, if you don't have the strength to lift the ax, you're not swinging it at all. If you have enough strength to wield it with a degree of nimbleness, it most certainly will AFFECT your ability to hit where you intend. Obviously, skill has something to do with it too, but that's factored into each character's level.

As for "anti-might bias", maybe we cling to it because we think that it's stupid. (Right up there with not knowing the difference between "affect" and "effect".)

Giving me more and more strength isnt going to enable me to hit a baseball with more and more accuracy. I can hit the ball farther because of my increased strength but not with more accuracy. The strength to wield the bat is secondary while my perception and hand eye cooridination is the primary cause for accuracy. Kind of like how grammar is not what you need to figure this stuff out but logic and reasoning is the primary cause.

Maybe you cling to it because you cant accept logical change.

#59
Boeroer

Boeroer

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 14436 posts
  • Location:Bucharest, Romania
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

No, it shouldn't affect … AFFECT … gun damage either. Why would strength AFFECT melee weapon accuracy? Your strength would AFFECT [...]
(Right up there with not knowing the difference between "affect" and "effect".


This is low. And it doesn't help your reasoning.

#60
thelee

thelee

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1379 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

No, it shouldn't affect … AFFECT … gun damage either. Why would strength AFFECT melee weapon accuracy? Your strength would AFFECT [...]
(Right up there with not knowing the difference between "affect" and "effect".


This is low. And it doesn't help your reasoning.

 

 

yeah,

1. English is not everyone's first language on these boards, so one should make allowances.

2. All you're demonstrating about affect and effect is that you're fully capable of parsing the pragmatics of a sentence, but you're choosing not to because you want to be an annoying pedant about the semantics.

 

moving on...


Edited by thelee, 12 February 2019 - 02:13 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users