Attributes - Fixed or Increasing?

[TrashMan]

 

I find it simpler to blance so that NOT having an attribute sufficiently high is a problem.

 

If types of attacks that are defended against with attribute X are frequent enough, then not having decent scores in that attribute gimps EVERY character.

 

Willpower for a barbarian? Get charmed, stunned, confused often.

 

Also, is it really necessary to completely avoid min-maxing and dump stats? It can lead to some fun characters too, and there are characters out there whop are...not well-rounded.

 

To me the issue is when an attribute is so fundamentally useless for any single class that every build will minimize it, there's very little point in including it for that class. Ideally most attributes would be relevant to every class, and the game would ensure that different allocations actually support different playstyles. A complete dump stat like luck is also rather pointless, and if it's already virtually decided where a character will allocate their points based on which class they're playing, why even bother making the player allocate the points? Just to filter out noobs who have no understanding of the system?

 

 

There will be people who don't care about min-maxing. So for their benefit.

 

Also, to me it just makes sense that some attributes are more usefull for certain professions. A long-distance runner will favor endurance/stamina, while a short distance one might favor agility/leg strength for as much explosive power.

 

I find it kinda self-defeating to try to "balance" what really shouldn't be balanced.

How much points a player puts in what attribute is the players decisions.

"Optimal" builds depend on what you want to achieve. If you want a charismatic, smart fighter, then you wont' be putting everythnig in STR.

[TrashMan]

 

On the other hand I very much like stat increases as for me they sort of symbolize the growth of the character both mentally and physically.

 

I prefer skills/feats in that regard over attributes

[mcmanusaur]

 

 

I find it simpler to blance so that NOT having an attribute sufficiently high is a problem.

 

If types of attacks that are defended against with attribute X are frequent enough, then not having decent scores in that attribute gimps EVERY character.

 

Willpower for a barbarian? Get charmed, stunned, confused often.

 

Also, is it really necessary to completely avoid min-maxing and dump stats? It can lead to some fun characters too, and there are characters out there whop are...not well-rounded.

 

To me the issue is when an attribute is so fundamentally useless for any single class that every build will minimize it, there's very little point in including it for that class. Ideally most attributes would be relevant to every class, and the game would ensure that different allocations actually support different playstyles. A complete dump stat like luck is also rather pointless, and if it's already virtually decided where a character will allocate their points based on which class they're playing, why even bother making the player allocate the points? Just to filter out noobs who have no understanding of the system?

 

 

There will be people who don't care about min-maxing. So for their benefit.

 

Also, to me it just makes sense that some attributes are more usefull for certain professions. A long-distance runner will favor endurance/stamina, while a short distance one might favor agility/leg strength for as much explosive power.

 

I find it kinda self-defeating to try to "balance" what really shouldn't be balanced.

How much points a player puts in what attribute is the players decisions.

"Optimal" builds depend on what you want to achieve. If you want a charismatic, smart fighter, then you wont' be putting everythnig in STR.

 

I think it's more about trimming away dump stats than it is about disallowing people to maximize certain attributes. I can't think of any reason results-wise that someone playing a barbarian would miss being able to put points into Wisdom, other than just for the notion of being able to do so. A barbarian can still min-max by putting everything in Strength, or instead put some points into Dexterity and Constitution for a more balanced build.

 

It makes sense to me as well that certain attributes would be more useful to specific classes, but ultimately we want every attribute to have enough use for each class such that it doesn't just become a dump stat. This is because dump stats are pointless and might as well not even be included, for the reasons above.

[Karkarov]

It makes sense to me as well that certain attributes would be more useful to specific classes, but ultimately we want every attribute to have enough use for each class such that it doesn't just become a dump stat. This is because dump stats are pointless and might as well not even be included, for the reasons above.

Well said.

 

Like I said before I personally have no issue with the concept of a "dump" stat as long as the player gets punished in some way for ignoring a stat.  That said.... if choices aren't hard then they aren't choices at all and they lack any real meaning.

 

So making stat distribution harder and something where you can't just choose to ignore one stat completely would probably be a better design and make for a more interesting game.

[Lephys]

Yeah, it's not about making all the attributes necessary to every class. It's about stripping them of complete uselessness.

 

The choice of which attributes to put more points in is the player's, but... well, think of it this way...

 

If you go to a restaurant, and you look at a menu, and you can get a french fry for $20, or a 3-course meal for $20, that's not much of a choice. I'd rather the two choices be equally viable in filling up my stomach (for the money spent), and it simply be a choice between other factors (flavor, texture, consistency, different nutrients, etc.).

 

It's silly when one point in stat A gives you an increased available skill pool for your class skills (higher level spells, class feat prerequisites, etc.), AND damage of the type you use, AND increased accuracy with melee weapons, and the same point in stat B gives you... a slightly higher Will save and perception check.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Lephys

[Sensuki]

This is my guess at how character attributes will work in Project Eternity based upon the current available information

 

I think there will be 6 or 7 different character attributes.

 

I think that Josh Sawyer has gone and created a list of all the things he would like character attributes to give bonuses to (from Melee Accuracy to the Mechanics Skill) and then mixed and matched them into groups where he feels that every attribute is important to every character on some level or another.

The result will be a fairly gamist set of attributes rather than a simulation of realistic attributes.

The attributes will be single digits like Fallout, and the single digits will apply a bonus equal to exactly the amount of the attribute to whatever given thing gets a bonus from the attribute.

Attribute Determination at character creation will be a point buy system, and possibly get an extra attribute point to spend say every 5 levels (giving a total of 2 extra attributes by the end of P:E(1) and 8 extra attributes by level 40, at the end of the P:E series.

I have absolutely no idea what the attributes are going to be or what will be appended to them however

[TrashMan]

 

I think it's more about trimming away dump stats than it is about disallowing people to maximize certain attributes. I can't think of any reason results-wise that someone playing a barbarian would miss being able to put points into Wisdom, other than just for the notion of being able to do so. A barbarian can still min-max by putting everything in Strength, or instead put some points into Dexterity and Constitution for a more balanced build.

 

It makes sense to me as well that certain attributes would be more useful to specific classes, but ultimately we want every attribute to have enough use for each class such that it doesn't just become a dump stat. This is because dump stats are pointless and might as well not even be included, for the reasons above.

 

 

If it has some use then it's not a dump stat.

 

You'll be really hard pressed to find EQUALLY valid use for EVERY stat for ALL classes. It's just silly. It doens't have to be perfectly balanced.

It's a RPG. If I want to "gimp" myself or play a unortodox build, then let me.

 

As a mage, if you have CC spells, then I can see a use for STR as it might increase the potency of such spells as and you can try and build a CC mage. Basicly the STR would act as a modifier.

WILL might increase the potency of protection spells.

 

 

But for a fighter?

INT increases critical hit modifiers? I dunno.

When you try to balance it like that, it ends up feeling fake. Artificial.

I think iz goes without saying that I prefer realistic attributes over "gamey" ones

Edited June 14, 2013 by TrashMan

[Jarmo]

 

 

But for a fighter?

INT increases critical hit modifiers? I dunno.

 

 

I'd have no problem with attack skill being governed by INT+DEX in equal shares.

Not as much as in Fallout, where low int character gets almost no skillpoints and thereby can't be too effective fighter.

 

But in principle I agree. No need to make all stats combat stats, equally useful for all classes. No charisma attack or stuff like that. 

[TrashMan]

[Morgulon the Wise]

I'd have no problem with attack skill being governed by INT+DEX in equal shares.

 

Not as much as in Fallout, where low int character gets almost no skillpoints and thereby can't be too effective fighter.

 

I like the Idea that skill gets produced by INT and DEX because it feels natural. But both are from a psycological viewpoint a product of the neurosystem and due to this connection I wanted to label these two attributes in one: Flexibility

 

 

force/power (offensive skill) is muscular strength, focus/concentration and self-esteem

resources (defensive skill) is body constitution, knowledge and faith

flexibility (handling skill) is dexterity, fluid intelligence and charisma

perception (awareness skill) is for reflexes, finding things/understanding patterns and emphasis

 

I hoped these 4 attributes/12 subcategories could represent a character in personality and orientation. You spend a point in the main attribute--> your character gains mostly in his class specific subattribute and less in the non-class-subattributes.

Flexibility would incorporate DEX and INT and also give more skills the higher it is.

 

Or do you want INT and DEX seperated? If you do, why?

[Jarmo]

 

Or do you want INT and DEX seperated? If you do, why?

 

 

 

Might not break the game system,

but I don't really want every acrobat to be extraordinarily clever fellows,

or every clever fellow to be a backflip hopping adonis.

 

But there's definitely something to be said for your stat system. It might work just fine.

[Morgulon the Wise]

 

 

Or do you want INT and DEX seperated? If you do, why?

 

 

 

Might not break the game system,

but I don't really want every acrobat to be extraordinarily clever fellows,

or every clever fellow to be a backflip hopping adonis.

 

But there's definitely something to be said for your stat system. It might work just fine.

 

 

Maybe the acrobat just jumps to the right conclusions...

 

 

As I said every class benefits in its way from the main attributes. Besides that real intelligence includes knowledge. This means that he wont be automatically intelligent if he has good dexterity.

Thanks to the "hopping adonis" I detected an error in my system which I'd say is caused by the fact that I am not a native English speaker:

 

flexibility (handling skill) is dexterity, fluid intelligence and charisma  -->eloquence

 

In fact I think charisma is a combination of eloquence and self esteem, maybe even a bit more, but I dont think it  includes:

 

attractiveness or "adonisity" (I better say this word is made up before someone jumps at it)

 

attractiveness is a possible trait, but I think it shouldn't be buyable with the same points.

It should still be possible to for the player to rate a character in levels like -5, -4, -3...,0, ...3, 4, 5 wich also should have some effects in the game. Some NCs will like certain levels of attractiveness more than others, but you might be able to change your appeareance through clothing and spells.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Morgulon the Wise

[Iucounu]

Does anybody actually know a game with a "gamey" set of attributes, with no real dump stats? And with 5 or more attributes?

[Lephys]

If it has some use then it's not a dump stat.

 

You'll be really hard pressed to find EQUALLY valid use for EVERY stat for ALL classes. It's just silly. It doens't have to be perfectly balanced.

It's a RPG. If I want to "gimp" myself or play a unortodox build, then let me.

 

As a mage, if you have CC spells, then I can see a use for STR as it might increase the potency of such spells as and you can try and build a CC mage. Basicly the STR would act as a modifier.

WILL might increase the potency of protection spells.

 

 

But for a fighter?

INT increases critical hit modifiers? I dunno.

When you try to balance it like that, it ends up feeling fake. Artificial.

I think iz goes without saying that I prefer realistic attributes over "gamey" ones

Ehh, I get what you're saying, but I'd say the term could easily be applied even to a stat that COULD provide SOME amount of benefit to your character in SOME form, but with that amount and form being clearly inferior to the same point spent in other specific stats.

 

The whole "get rid of dump stats" thing is mainly about getting rid of extremely narrow-minded associations that many games/systems have all but forced for so long. Like, why would you make a 20-STR warrior who excels at melee combat with a Constitution of 5? You wouldn't. Then, you've got the class tie-in. "Well, I'm a Warrior, so I can wear awesome armor, which already negates DEX modifiers to AC in the upper tiers, so I don't really need DEX, either." Then, you start running into dump stats, because of other groupings. "Well, I COULD try to get high Charisma, but I can't have high Charisma, high Strength, high Constitution, AND high intelligence, and without intelligence, I can't really come up with clever ways of talking my way out of situations and such, so... I guess I'll just cut my losses and go with mediocre-to-low Charisma and Intelligence."

 

Basically, just because you're a warrior, and want to focus on melee combat, most stats don't really do anything for you.

 

If you split them up a little bit more, you allow them to tweak sub-roles within specific roles, rather than only belonging to entirely different roles, for the most part.

 

The INT-DEX divide on critical strikes was just an example. It doesn't have to work like that. And, even if it does work like that, 20 INT doesn't have to necessarily give you any further advantage than 14 INT. It's just, normally, with a melee-combat-oriented character, unless you just want to be smart for RP's sake, you don't really get any character-build-mechanics benefit whatsoever from INT, so you can drop it down to like... 6, easily, and get those extra points to pump into other things. It's more of a "why NOT get those extra points?" situation. Whereas, if it affected, for example, your critical hit modifier, you'd have a reason to take INT for two completely separate roles: melee-combat, AND clever predicament-solver.

 

And the general idea does at least seem to make sense. I would think a 6-INT Warrior would rely on brute force and the general effectiveness of his fighting technique to simply overpower his opponents and make sure he's not NOT-hitting them. But, a 14-INT Warrior (comparatively) would probably fight a lot more intelligently/efficiently. And I'm not talking a crazy range, here, either. No "Oh, you have 6 Intelligence? Your crit modifier is X 1.2. You have 14-INT? It's now X 7!!!!". No mechanic idea escapes the need for moderation.

 

Also, for what it's worth, having a melee Warrior with a base 1.2 crit damage modifier, and having a melee Warrior with a base 1.8 crit damage modifier are both perfectly viable options. With low intelligence, you're not without the ability to critically hit, and with high intelligence, you're not gaining some immensely over-powerful capability. It's just something that used to not be variable, and now it is. AND it gives INT something to do where it typically had no purpose (in affecting combat prowess). AND it seems to make at least some sense as something Intelligence could affect.

 

Another example would be Endurance/Consitition, for, say, a Wizard. Maybe it could boost Concentration, by allowing the Wizard to more easily ignore/endure physical damage/trauma while casting.

 

Hell, the stats could even do different things for different classes. Potentially. I'm not vying for anyone to just arbitrarily roll call the stats and make sure they all have 3 jobs, no matter what. I just see the potential for stats to affect more than they typically do, and I'm attempting to explore that potential to see if it works throughout, or if there's always a big fat wall halfway through.

 

To go on what you said, I get that it can easily become gamey and artificial. I'm trying to figure out if it can be done without that happening, not claiming that it's just inherently not possible for it to become gamey. But, can you honestly say to me that the idea of Intelligence affecting one's ability to pick out weaknesses in an opponent's armor/physiology/technique is so artificial and doesn't fit with how intelligence works in reality, at all?

Edited June 14, 2013 by Lephys

[sirchet]

Maybe we shouldn't micro manage how a player can distribute skill points.

 

Is there really a need to "punish" someone for not building a character along the lines of what we few that post feel is the right way to do so?

 

I say, let a player build the character as they see fit and how they enjoy playing it.

 

Players that are "in the know" can always build a character as they see fit too.

 

Btw, a so called dump stat in real life is almost always present, I call it a natural balance.

[Lephys]

Maybe we shouldn't micro manage how a player can distribute skill points.

 

Is there really a need to "punish" someone for not building a character along the lines of what we few that post feel is the right way to do so?

I don't follow. Could you please explain how any of this is punishing someone, and/or restricting the stat-point allocation process? (Genuine question; I really don't follow what you're referring to).

[TrashMan]

 

Ehh, I get what you're saying, but I'd say the term could easily be applied even to a stat that COULD provide SOME amount of benefit to your character in SOME form, but with that amount and form being clearly inferior to the same point spent in other specific stats.

 

The whole "get rid of dump stats" thing is mainly about getting rid of extremely narrow-minded associations that many games/systems have all but forced for so long. Like, why would you make a 20-STR warrior who excels at melee combat with a Constitution of 5? You wouldn't. Then, you've got the class tie-in. "Well, I'm a Warrior, so I can wear awesome armor, which already negates DEX modifiers to AC in the upper tiers, so I don't really need DEX, either." Then, you start running into dump stats, because of other groupings. "Well, I COULD try to get high Charisma, but I can't have high Charisma, high Strength, high Constitution, AND high intelligence, and without intelligence, I can't really come up with clever ways of talking my way out of situations and such, so... I guess I'll just cut my losses and go with mediocre-to-low Charisma and Intelligence."

 

Basically, just because you're a warrior, and want to focus on melee combat, most stats don't really do anything for you.

 

 

1) You could, but you wouldn't. Your'e not forced into anything, so I dont exactly see your point there.

 

2) That's actually a problem with the D&D armor system. In PE armor doesn't make you harder to hit, meaning dexterity/agiltiy is important fo fighters too. An extra layer of defense if you will. Imagine a high STR, high DEx fighter in full plate. What he cannot doge, he can absorb/deflect. Scary.

 

3) There's nothing wrong with medicore scores really.  It stands to reason that not all stats will be equalyl usefull for all profeessions. However, who said you have to build a cahracter that is focused so narrowly only on his profession? Charisma is not importnat for a warrior IN COMBAT... but out side of combat it could be usefull.

 

 

 

The INT-DEX divide on critical strikes was just an example. It doesn't have to work like that. And, even if it does work like that, 20 INT doesn't have to necessarily give you any further advantage than 14 INT. It's just, normally, with a melee-combat-oriented character, unless you just want to be smart for RP's sake, you don't really get any character-build-mechanics benefit whatsoever from INT, so you can drop it down to like... 6, easily, and get those extra points to pump into other things. It's more of a "why NOT get those extra points?" situation. Whereas, if it affected, for example, your critical hit modifier, you'd have a reason to take INT for two completely separate roles: melee-combat, AND clever predicament-solver.

 

I get what you are saiyng, altough trying to do for everything also feels aritificial.

Would critical be determiend by DEX and INT? If so, by what formula? Equal share? It would have to be some pretty weird fomula if you want to force a player to invest equally.

You would again run into the problem of balance, where favoring one stat will yield better results.

And I have no problem with that really.

 

My philospohy - go with what makes sense and FRAK everything else.

[Lephys]

1) You could, but you wouldn't. Your'e not forced into anything, so I dont exactly see your point there.

 

2) That's actually a problem with the D&D armor system. In PE armor doesn't make you harder to hit, meaning dexterity/agiltiy is important fo fighters too. An extra layer of defense if you will. Imagine a high STR, high DEx fighter in full plate. What he cannot doge, he can absorb/deflect. Scary.

 

3) There's nothing wrong with medicore scores really.  It stands to reason that not all stats will be equalyl usefull for all profeessions. However, who said you have to build a cahracter that is focused so narrowly only on his profession? Charisma is not importnat for a warrior IN COMBAT... but out side of combat it could be usefull.

1) The point was that you have no significant incentive to forego oodles of Constitution for some other attribute (with the exception of simply intentionally hindering yourself for challenge's sake, in which case you're admitting it's an obvious detriment and the point stands). So "STR + CON" is pretty much your standard formula, with some spices sprinkled on for flavor (maybe some CHA, maybe some extra WIS to beef up perception and the like, etc.

 

2) True, but wouldn't it still make sense that full plate + a shield hinders your agility to an extent (hence the "maximum DEX modifier"s in D&D)? Also, the difference from the previous "norm" means we're already re-allocating the effects of the various values within the system. Someone said "Hmmm... maybe armor shouldn't prevent you from getting hit, but rather... the actual dodge/redirection of a hit and the actual nullification of damage should be separated into two individual factors?" Is that not simply the same exploration attempt I'm making, here?

 

3) A fair point, yet again. But, as I said before, I'm not suggesting Charisma is POINTLESS if you're a Warrior. I'm simply asking "Should STR and CON really be the only two things you really need if you want to be a combat-oriented Warrior?" I merely think it could, potentially, be more complex than that, in a good way. Kind of like how it's more interesting to be able to use a fire spell on a target who's currently protected from fire, to blind it rather than burn it for damage. Instead of just "Oh well, fire won't hurt it, and that's that." I simply wish to explore the attributes and say "Ahh, but Strength could also affect THIS, which other systems don't account for, and that provides more interesting options for classes that typically ignore Strength as a largely unimportant stat." I won't know whether or not its feasible until I actually explore everything and figure out that answer. But, I think maybe it's a worthwhile effort.

 

I get what you are saiyng, altough trying to do for everything also feels aritificial.

Would critical be determiend by DEX and INT? If so, by what formula? Equal share? It would have to be some pretty weird fomula if you want to force a player to invest equally.

You would again run into the problem of balance, where favoring one stat will yield better results.

And I have no problem with that really.

 

My philospohy - go with what makes sense and FRAK everything else.

Well, I don't think we should just do it for everything, necessarily. Maybe even just one additional attribute could be more versatile and less tertiary for each class. *shrug*. Again, I won't really know without trying. Plus, have you seen some of the formulas for things in games? They tend to get pretty weird. And, I don't even think my example would be all that weird. Simple things like caps and relative values between the two stats would do it, I would think. And the goal isn't to "force" the player to do anything other than maybe consider more individual factors for a more fine-tuned character build.

 

There are several games that derive factor values from multiple stats in conjunction. Naturally I fail to think of any specific examples, off the top of my head, heh. Well, a simple example that I CAN think of would be how a lot of games have ONE stat determine your maximum mana pool, while anOTHER stat determines your rate of mana regeneration. Not that I'm opting for mana pools and mana regeneration in P:E, but the point is that 2 different stats unite to form the workings of your mana. I like that idea. The alternative would be to either not allow the player to affect one or the other, or to have them both decided by the same stat. That provides less versatility in character development on the player's part, I think.

 

Also, I like your philosophy, but how did anyone even know that the current typical system made sense, and to go with it, until they explored options? I'm sure they didn't just dig it up out of the dirt.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Lephys

[TrashMan]

 

1) The point was that you have no significant incentive to forego oodles of Constitution for some other attribute (with the exception of simply intentionally hindering yourself for challenge's sake, in which case you're admitting it's an obvious detriment and the point stands). So "STR + CON" is pretty much your standard formula, with some spices sprinkled on for flavor (maybe some CHA, maybe some extra WIS to beef up perception and the like, etc.

 

It's a standard formula for a reason. It makes sense. Well, that and AGY.

 

 

 

 

 

3) A fair point, yet again. But, as I said before, I'm not suggesting Charisma is POINTLESS if you're a Warrior. I'm simply asking "Should STR and CON really be the only two things you really need if you want to be a combat-oriented Warrior?" I merely think it could, potentially, be more complex than that, in a good way. Kind of like how it's more interesting to be able to use a fire spell on a target who's currently protected from fire, to blind it rather than burn it for damage. Instead of just "Oh well, fire won't hurt it, and that's that." I simply wish to explore the attributes and say "Ahh, but Strength could also affect THIS, which other systems don't account for, and that provides more interesting options for classes that typically ignore Strength as a largely unimportant stat." I won't know whether or not its feasible until I actually explore everything and figure out that answer. But, I think maybe it's a worthwhile effort.

 

 

I think you're answering your own question. COMBAT-ORIENTED. It only makes sense to go for attributes that will be the most usefull.

For a warrior that would be the big 3 - STR, AGY/DEX and CON. .. you could add willpower for magic defense. Things like Charisma really logicly serve little purpose in combat..other than to help lead.

INT is also of limited use, because you're not going to be inventing warm water there. You have swordsmanship schools that already have effective moves and experience makes those moves reflexive.

 

That said, attribute X might also effect Y is a valid approach, but only if it makes sense. If the effect has to be redicolously overblown to have a meaningfull impact, then it's "gamey" and fake.

 

 

 

Well, I don't think we should just do it for everything, necessarily. Maybe even just one additional attribute could be more versatile and less tertiary for each class. *shrug*. Again, I won't really know without trying. Plus, have you seen some of the formulas for things in games? They tend to get pretty weird. And, I don't even think my example would be all that weird. Simple things like caps and relative values between the two stats would do it, I would think. And the goal isn't to "force" the player to do anything other than maybe consider more individual factors for a more fine-tuned character build.

 

I'd personally go for more chance to make use of those secondary/tertiary attributes rather then trying ot beef their impact and trying to shove them where they don't belong.

 

In other words, give the player a gameplay/roleplaying reason why he might want to invest a point or two into other stats - it doesn't have to be combat-oriented.

 

Of course, the problem is two fold:

a) it's a very combat-oriented game, which means the Pc will fight a lot more than "normal" and combat is also more important

b) You have a party that can cover up your weakneses. Altough I kinda hesitate to call this a "problem", because that's kinda the point of the party. Complementing skills.

 

 

 

 

There are several games that derive factor values from multiple stats in conjunction. Naturally I fail to think of any specific examples, off the top of my head, heh. Well, a simple example that I CAN think of would be how a lot of games have ONE stat determine your maximum mana pool, while anOTHER stat determines your rate of mana regeneration. Not that I'm opting for mana pools and mana regeneration in P:E, but the point is that 2 different stats unite to form the workings of your mana. I like that idea. The alternative would be to either not allow the player to affect one or the other, or to have them both decided by the same stat. That provides less versatility in character development on the player's part, I think.

 

Also, I like your philosophy, but how did anyone even know that the current typical system made sense, and to go with it, until they explored options? I'm sure they didn't just dig it up out of the dirt.

 

Some time ago I wrote down a system which tries to balance attribute usage. I'll have to see if I still have it, but it basicly did exactly what you said above with the mana pool an regen. Altough mana worked a bit differently than you'd think, as there was a non-replenishable mana pool (aka overall fatigue) and a smaller regenerating one (stamina/breath).

Also, different weapons used different attributes  in different ratios to calculate chances to hit (like 2*DEX+STR, or vice versa)

 

 

[Lephys]

^ I'm pretty much in agreeance with you in everything you're saying, Trashman. I'm not trying to force these things where they don't work or don't belong, so, for constructiveness' sake, I would ask that you please simply tell me what you feel won't work and why, and simply forego the "these things don't need to be forced" lesson that I assure you I already know.

 

It's a good point. I'm just already in agreeance with it.

 

Some time ago I wrote down a system which tries to balance attribute usage. I'll have to see if I still have it, but it basicly did exactly what you said above with the mana pool an regen. Altough mana worked a bit differently than you'd think, as there was a non-replenishable mana pool (aka overall fatigue) and a smaller regenerating one (stamina/breath).

Also, different weapons used different attributes  in different ratios to calculate chances to hit (like 2*DEX+STR, or vice versa)

That's exactly the idea I'm going for. With the example equation applying to a particular weapon, a Warrior with 17 DEX and only 11 STR would actually be more effective with the given weapon type than one with 11 DEX and 17 STR would be (45 versus 39). I think that type of system is much more interesting than "if you want to be good with weapon damage, pick STR." When there's a valid basis for it, having 2 facets to something's effectiveness rather than just one always provides more choices.

 

Then, you get to forego things like "Oh, you pretty much don't want to pick Orlan if you want to make a Warrior who can hold his own. They get a -2 to STR." That's automatically not a given, because STR isn't the sole, inherent deciding factor on whether or not you are absolutely better or worse with weapon damage.

 

I just think, if something like damage already has so many aspects to it, why shouldn't we explore ways in which various aspects of human capability might affect its various aspects?

[TrashMan]

Well, to be fair, in terms of pure damage, STR is going to be the dominant factor in most cases. It's pretty logical that hitting harder = more damage done.

What I see DEX/AGY is a mobiltiy aspect, and as such does not influence the direct amount of force, but the application. I see it could increae the parry/block with a weapon, maybe provide a bonus to chance to hit or something - but regardless if a sword, axe, or dagger, STR will determine "base" damage.

 

Just removing AC from armor already puts a huge difference between a DEX based warrior and STR based one, and soemthing like this pushes it even further.

I made a BG2 mod once where I changed the way armor works - it was pretty much how PE will do it. Damage reduction/migation. DEX suddenly became more important for fighters. The entire balance flet different (but the game was still perfecly playable)

[Sarex]

Well, to be fair, in terms of pure damage, STR is going to be the dominant factor in most cases. It's pretty logical that hitting harder = more damage done.

What I see DEX/AGY is a mobiltiy aspect, and as such does not influence the direct amount of force, but the application. I see it could increae the parry/block with a weapon, maybe provide a bonus to chance to hit or something - but regardless if a sword, axe, or dagger, STR will determine "base" damage.

 

Just removing AC from armor already puts a huge difference between a DEX based warrior and STR based one, and soemthing like this pushes it even further.

I made a BG2 mod once where I changed the way armor works - it was pretty much how PE will do it. Damage reduction/migation. DEX suddenly became more important for fighters. The entire balance flet different (but the game was still perfecly playable)

 

It could always be:

strength-base damage/carry weight

dexterity-doge/crit chance

 

and then, chance to hit/hits per round is increased by weapon proficiency

Edited June 18, 2013 by Sarex

[Morgulon the Wise]

The problems with this STR/ DEX/ INT stats is that they are solely based on fight and action. Yes, P:E has a focus on fighting so they are relevant. But does it have to include these in their roleplay setting as the MAIN SKILLS which define the personality of a character?

 

I want to know how the attributes are labeled in P:E since I think that this "traditional labeling" doesnt fit anymore for the PnP roleplay-reinfluenced type of game P:E (I think) will be.

[Lephys]

Well, to be fair, in terms of pure damage, STR is going to be the dominant factor in most cases. It's pretty logical that hitting harder = more damage done.

What I see DEX/AGY is a mobiltiy aspect, and as such does not influence the direct amount of force, but the application. I see it could increae the parry/block with a weapon, maybe provide a bonus to chance to hit or something - but regardless if a sword, axe, or dagger, STR will determine "base" damage.

 

Just removing AC from armor already puts a huge difference between a DEX based warrior and STR based one, and soemthing like this pushes it even further.

I made a BG2 mod once where I changed the way armor works - it was pretty much how PE will do it. Damage reduction/migation. DEX suddenly became more important for fighters. The entire balance flet different (but the game was still perfecly playable)

True, true. I am curious, though... would the damage of a weapon really always be directly proportionate to your strength? I mean, if I stab you with a dagger, it doesn't really take that much force for the blade to slide on in (assuming it's striking a cuttable material, and not solid steel or something). So, if a 13-year-old boy stabs someone with a dagger, and The Rock stabs someone with a dagger, I'm not sure there's going to be THAT much difference in the actual amount of damage inflicted. There probably wouldn't be as much difference in the damage as there is between the boy's strength and The Rock's strength, right?

 

Whereas, if you change the weapon to a maul, THEN it probably matters. Even if your armor stops the maul from physically making contact with you, the boy's maul swing is going to do almost nill (it might make you lose your balance?), while The Rock's maul swing is going to crush some ribs and organs before rapidly introducing your face to the ground beside you, if not knocking you several yards in the process (depending on your size and all that jazz).

 

I'm not trying to get too technical, but, I just don't see a 20-STR person always dealing 2 times the damage of a 10-strength person, no matter what the circumstances. That's why I liked the idea of your weapon damage formula so much. However the specifics work out, you'd think STR wouldn't simply = the most damage. And that's what I'm getting at, here, with my "maybe THIS stat could affect THIS aspect of damage?"

 

For instance, it seems to me that DEX would do more for your ability to parry (to dexterously wield your weapon and account for the movements of your foe's weapon more easily/accurately) and such than it would to help you completely dodge everything alltogether. Why? Because it's much easier to redirect a sword stroke enough to not effectively hit you (in terms of how much effort is required, not in how easy it is to accurately do) than it is to move your whole self in such a way that the sword stroke misses you entirely (statistically... it's obviously easier for some sword strokes). It always bothered me that, in some games, you'd have your high-DEX character (maybe a Rogue) simultaneously engaging an enemy in melee combat AND leaping completely to the side on 30% of the strokes. It was like the Hokey Pokey.

 

"I'm out of range, and BACK in range, ATTACK! Back out of range, back in range! Attack!" I would think leaping wildly out of the way, or Matrix ducking swords and such would grant your enemy so much time to recover from his miss that it would negate any advantage you'd actually get from having not-been hit. *shrug*. I could be wrong, though.

 

Anywho, so, yeah, in that way, instead of just one obvious "give him high constitution for HP and good armor for damage stopping!" choice for being a "damage sponge," you could actually have a high-DEX melee fighter who constantly deflects more solid blows and basically handles his opponent better than even a low-DEX melee fighter with 22 STR.

 

See, that added consideration doesn't make you take high DEX as a melee fighter, but it does give you an interesting factor to consider. And, for someone not wielding a melee weapon, it wouldn't help them out in that same way.

 

(I realize, by the way, that DEX already affects your ability to essentially not-take-damage, to an extent. Without expressly stating that, I probably seemed like I was suggesting some entirely new role for DEX, heh.)

[Eiphel]

I feel like Strength might have interesting implications for armour penetration - The 13 year old can't drive a dagger through boiled leather, but the Rock might be able to ram one through chainmail.