Might is botched the same way as in PoE1

[Crucis]

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.

[asnjas]

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 February 11, 2019 by asnjas

[Crucis]

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".)

[xzar_monty]

<unable to delete post; ignore>

Edited February 11, 2019 by xzar_monty

[beastsman]

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 February 11, 2019 by beastsman

[Cartoons Plural]

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

[Verde]

 

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.

[asnjas]

 

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.

[Boeroer]

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.

[thelee]

 

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 February 12, 2019 by thelee

[Crucis]

 

 

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...

 

 

Then they should look at someone pointing out their grammatical errors as a learning experience and take responsibility for their errors, rather than blame others for their own inadequacies. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

No, it's truth.  People should learn from their mistakes, not blame others for pointing them out.

[Crucis]

 

 

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.

 

 

I disagree.  If someone gives you a bat that you can barely lift off the ground, you're not hitting anything.  On the flip side, if you have the strength to whip a bat around like a toothpick, you will be able to manipulate it with ease, thus greatly increasing your chances of hitting your target.

 

You may not need grammar to figure out stuff like this, but you sure as hell need it to communicate effectively and for your comments and opinions to be taken seriously.

[Verde]

A combination of Might and Dex makes sense to affect melee accuracy with Perception moreso affecting ranged accuracy, as another poster once said.

 

The fact we have one dump stat (Res) and arguably two (Con for some builds) shows Deadfire doesn't balance them well.

[Franknstein]

If someone gives you a bat that you can barely lift off the ground, you're not hitting anything.  On the flip side, if you have the strength to whip a bat around like a toothpick, you will be able to manipulate it with ease, thus greatly increasing your chances of hitting your target.

 

What you are writing about (as I understand it) are penalties for insufficient strength. After some point, when you are able to manipulate the weapon no problem, more strength won't help your accuracy as much.

 

And it seems that even the weakest kith in Eora at 2 MIG and 3 CON are tough and strong enough to wear Full Plate Armor and a Zweihänder with ease.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Franknstein

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

Then they should look at someone pointing out their grammatical errors as a learning experience and take responsibility for their errors, rather than blame others for their own inadequacies. 

 

mate, u straight up failed to comprehend that no one asked u to correct their copy. u might want to work on ur own communication skills before going in studs up on someone else.

 

You may not need grammar to figure out stuff like this, but you sure as hell need it to communicate effectively and for your comments and opinions to be taken seriously.

 

who cares. a clown wearing a bowtie is still a clown.

 

on that note, uve spelt ur username wrong. its supposed to be 'circus'.

[Franknstein]

I have nothing against your perception that "might" means simply power, regardless on if physical or sorcerous.

 

I certainly do NOT want to have my _powerful, but powerful in magic_ *W*I*T*C*H* performing amazing _physical_ feats! She is supposed to be _WEAK_ physically!

 

Actually, it's in the description. "Might contributes to blah-blah-blah. It represents a character's *physical* and spiritual strength, *brute force* as well as their ability to channel powerful magic". It doesn't mean simply power.

 

So, dump Might. Go control-freak route. Be a powerful caster, be physical weak.

[xzar_monty]

 

 

 

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...

 

 

Then they should look at someone pointing out their grammatical errors as a learning experience and take responsibility for their errors, rather than blame others for their own inadequacies. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

No, it's truth.  People should learn from their mistakes, not blame others for pointing them out.

 

 

What you have done is not pointing out another person's mistake (note: you can do that very simply by saying: "FYI, it's spelled 'affect', not 'effect'"). What you have done is deliberately and maliciously mocking another person from your self-appointed superior position, sneeringly underlining their perceived inadequacy in every possible instance (i.e. every single time you use the word affect) and then finally emphasizing that you regard the other person as stupid -- you wrote that the stupidity of something is "Right up there with not knowing the difference between 'affect' and 'effect'."

 

That's petty, immature, mean, and unnecessary, and gives the impression of a person with astonishingly poor social skills.

Edited February 13, 2019 by xzar_monty

[Boeroer]

No, it's truth.  People should learn from their mistakes, not blame others for pointing them out.

But you could teach people orthography (spelling mistakes don't have anything to do with grammar) without being douchy. Just reread your last sentence about it:

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".)*

where you causally connect an orthography mistake with stupidity. This is not decent. You got annoyed by his arguments and lashed out. That might happen sometimes, but it's still low and should not be justified.

 

)*And by the way the dot would be correctly placed after the brackets. We all make spelling or grammar mistakes sometimes... No need to dwell on that. I mean unless it's a very funny mistake. Like Buttercut or Grocery Street...

 

Most here can totally differenciate between the ability to write a correct sentence and the abililty to make a solid argument. Heck, if not then the Balthazar would by royally screwed. Sorry Balthazar! 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Boeroer

[Verde]

"anti-might bias"

 

*eye roll*

Edited February 13, 2019 by Verde

[merkmerk73]

Yeah you point out some silliness but

 

Sawyer's stat system is genius and the best stat system in any RPG, period

 

Yeah you can still dump some stats, oh well, it's better than anything else.

[Verde]

What?! Genius and best?! Please. It's mediocre and one of the most unintuitive.

[thelee]

What?! Genius and best?! Please. It's mediocre and one of the most unintuitive.

 

I'll take JE Sawyer's stat system over most other stat systems I've ever seen in an RPG. It's not perfect, but very few are good enough to have even what little flaws PoE/Deadfire has.

[xzar_monty]

How is it unintuitive, much less one of the most unintuitive? I'd like to hear this one explained.

[Verde]

How is it unintuitive, much less one of the most unintuitive? I'd like to hear this one explained.

The whole topic is about it. Might.

 

@thelee I'd personally take any other system besides PoE1 or 2. Plus Intelligence affecting wayyy too much. Intelligent Barbarian ugh. Like why would Int affect Carnage and not Str or Dex? Look at all the useless passive and active skills too.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Verde

[thelee]

 

How is it unintuitive, much less one of the most unintuitive? I'd like to hear this one explained.

The whole topic is about it. Might.

 

@thelee I'd personally take any other system besides PoE1 or 2. Look at all the useless passive and active skills too.

 

 

Intuitive in this particular area is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Mechanically, it's the most straight-forward thing you could possibly do. Might - more damage of any kind. How can you get more intuitive than an across-the-board unconditional damage increase?

 

The original point of this thread appears to be that the unintuitiveness comes into how it's used in checks, which is orthogonal to the actual stat system.