Attributes - Fixed or Increasing?

[Sacred_Path]

Has it been clarified whether the game's built-in respec options will allow any attribute redistribution (particularly for points gained after character creation)? As one poster noted earlier, sometimes planning out stats is really important. In 3/3.5 edition DnD, if you didn't aim for one or two really high stats from the get-go, certain high-level feats could remain out of reach -- particularly for epic feats that required 25 in a stat -- meaning it could be 20 levels or more before you qualified for them. I hope PE is a little more cautious with attribute requirements than that.

I would guess (with nothing to go on) that the talents will be akin to Fallout's perks in this regard - that is, for certain talents, arrangements will have to be made long in advance. I also wouldn't see anything wrong with that, especially if simply piling on more easily gained talents results in an equally powerful, albeit mechanically very different character. In Lionheart (which used SPECIAL) all perks were laid out in the manual - I don't remember if this was the case in Fallout 1&2 - so that even on your first playthrough, you could make an informed decision about what character you wanted to build.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

No dump stats is ****ing great!

 

I'm still not sure if attributes will be fixed or increase though(the "no" seemed to be replying to dump stats), does anyone have a confirmation one way or the other?

[Cultist]

And some more:

Q: You mean like Diablo? Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence and maaaybe Constitution too. Somewhat uncoventional for an rpg, yes...

JESawyer: No, not like Diablo. All Diablos have irregular ability score application between classes and all Diablos have dump stats.

 

Q: :/ oh no, it is a 3 attribute system, isn't it?

JESawyer: No.

 

Q: 4. Five is too close to the conventional 6 to be called "unconventional", ignoring the possibility of unconventional/silly naming.

JESawyer: It's not the number of Attributes that is unconventional, but how they are applied to derived statistics. It's more "gamist" than "simulationist". D&D's ability score system tries to be both and, IMO, fails because of it.

[mcmanusaur]

What I get out of the Sawyer quotes is that we may see something that combines mental and physical attributes so as to make each attribute hypothetically valuable to all classes:

Power (Offensive Strength/Wisdom)

Health (Constitution)

Fortitude (Endurance/Willpower)

Finesse (Agility/Dexterity/Intelligence)

Perception (Awareness)

Appeal (Attractiveness/Charisma)

This rids the "simulationist" distinction between the mental and physical in favor of a zero-sum game- with no pointless stats like Wisdom for a Barbarian- regardless of class.

Edited June 7, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Jarmo]

One thing about meaningful stats. A quick glance at http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Carrying_Capacity

 

Going from str 1 to str 2 doubles the carrying capacity, doesn't anything like double the damage output, adds 10 LB's to max carry weight.

Going from 15 to 20 also doubles the carry capacity from 200 to 400 LB's, about 40 LB's per step.

 

Now would the system really be worse and less understandable if:

 

STR 10 meant you can carry 10 LB's (D&D STR1)

STR 600 meant you can carry 600 LB's (D&D STR 23)

 

If one could live with that, would it be also fine if a guy capable of carrying 600 LB's (D&D STR23)

also did 6x the damage of a guy capable of carrying 100 LB's (D&D STR 10), because he's 6x stronger?

[Eiphel]

One thing about meaningful stats. A quick glance at http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Carrying_Capacity

 

Going from str 1 to str 2 doubles the carrying capacity, doesn't anything like double the damage output, adds 10 LB's to max carry weight.

Going from 15 to 20 also doubles the carry capacity from 200 to 400 LB's, about 40 LB's per step.

 

Now would the system really be worse and less understandable if:

 

STR 10 meant you can carry 10 LB's (D&D STR1)

STR 600 meant you can carry 600 LB's (D&D STR 23)

 

If one could live with that, would it be also fine if a guy capable of carrying 600 LB's (D&D STR23)

also did 6x the damage of a guy capable of carrying 100 LB's (D&D STR 10), because he's 6x stronger?

 

To be honest, whilst I like my stats to be meaningful, I do also like them to be within realistic ranges. When max-strength human can be six, or seven or eight times stronger than average strength guy, it strains credulity.

[Jarmo]

 

To be honest, whilst I like my stats to be meaningful, I do also like them to be within realistic ranges. When max-strength human can be six, or seven or eight times stronger than average strength guy, it strains credulity.

 

 

Though on the other hand, bench press world record is over 700LB's.

I can't do 200 and.. well I don't know what average human is, but I'm sure 100 LB's  is way too much for many.

[TrashMan]

Fixed.

 

Wether rolled of distributed. I don't mind rolling, as long as you get the "choose best 2 out of 3" or something that prevents a really bad roll.

 

 

But I absolutely detest increasing attributes.

They make no sense and they serve no actual purpose other than being numbers that go up.

 

DA:O and DA2 had you start wiht attributes in the 12-16 range (you were average-above average) and end up with a attribute in the 90's range.

Frakt that. It's unintuitive. It's limiting - ESPECIALLY if it's used as requirements for items. I utterly DETEST that.

[Tale]

Modest increases. I don't like systems that increase every level. I just don't like seeing the scores bloat up to gigantic numbers. But there should be a few gains. That's not because of any systemic concern, but more of my need to feel like the character is growing in more ways, while avoiding bloated numbers.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I'd like to see small increments too, and I would prefer stats that very rarely increase too.

If there's STR, it would be enough if it went up once or perhaps twice at the most in a game where the characters have an eight-level interval.

Also, if there are ancient tomes or something that could potentially increase such a stat by one, they should be so rare that it brings tears to me eyes when I finally find one.

 

But Obsidian may very well go for a percentage skill system á la Runequest or Fallout New Vegas or even Skyrim for what we know. Still, I'd rather have small unbloated numbers that matter.

[yaminsoul]

I too support point buy with gradual increase, IE. the NVW-Icewind Dale 2. Your characters gets x number of points to divide amoung attributes, then say every few levels gets a point, as well can get a point or two as rewards. 

 

So ie closer to fixed but some change.

 

My problem with rolling, as has been mentioned by a few people, is that it encourages the power gamer in me to keep rolling until I get god stats. Now if they want to put that option in, sure I guess,  but it might ruin balance issues.

[Lephys]

I also back the "fixed" idea. For the most part. I think the aspects that stats/attributes embody are extraordinarily permanent/static in nature. In other words, Intelligence is really just a scale. If it goes from 1-10, and you have a 1, that means you're about as intelligent as the leas-intelligent tenth of the populous. If it's 10, then you're as smart as a person can be. If you're 5 years old, and you have 10 intelligence, that doesn't mean you possess the mind of an adult instead of a 5-year-old. It just means that you're as intelligent as any 5-year-old can be.

 

So, to establish that, then say "Oh, the gain of experience is actually going to increase your inherent ability to aim, see things, and process information! 8D!" is a bit silly to me.

 

Of course, I did say "for the most part" up there. The reason is, there are things like Strength to consider. Through some extensive occurrences/tribulations, you may actually improve your physical muscle mass to the point of moving you significantly enough along that 1-10 (example numbers) scale to constitute a whole point being gained.

 

However, it's really all in how everything's handled, and what it's actually representing, specifically. Because, again, Bruce Lee was smaller than I am, and probably was smaller than a lot of big wrestlers, and yet he was STILL far stronger. So, again, I think, even with Strength, it really compares to an average, all other things the same. If you have 10 Strength and are 5 years old, maybe you're stronger than 95% of other 5-year-olds. Doesn't mean an adult can't still kick you across the room if he chooses. But, once your body is fully grown, just like that other guy's, you're now going to be that much stronger than him.

 

To put it simply, the stats/attributes typically seem to represent your potential in a given area, as opposed to rating your ability with all factors considered at a specific point in time. I mean, you can be the most intelligent person in the universe, and that doesn't inherently grant you literacy, or knowledge.

[mcmanusaur]

If increasing attributes are a must, then the thing I most want to avoid is the "increase one attribute of your choosing every 3rd level" system that DnD-based games tend to use. For one thing, why every third level? It's really artificial, and while this works well for pen and paper, we can do much better in video games. More importantly, how does this correspond with the real world experience of becoming stronger or smarter? You don't just choose one or the other arbitrarily; you devote effort to activities that develop one or the other and reap the reward of your efforts eventually. In this respect, the "define your character through your play" philosophy that has recently become popular (and which I have tended to view as leading to dumbed-down mechanics) is actually more valid and consistent with the real world. That doesn't mean I support a game like Skyrim completely getting rid of attributes (it is still important that the player is able to see their own progress), but if attributes must increase it should be due to practicing related skills or preferably even related to plot events, rather than an arbitrary choice by the player with meta/powergaming considerations in mind.

Edited June 8, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[IndiraLightfoot]

Mcmanusaur: That's a very good point. I'd love to see something like that, attributes some restriction for the rare attribute increment to what exercises the character in question have been repeating, perhaps not slavishly, but still. In this way, attributes can maintain a rather static and pivotal role of defining the basic physical and mental frame of the character.

[Failion]

While 2nd edition dnd was simple. I preferred it over 3rd edition. Felt more old school. A rouge would get slaughtered easily in close combat, A mage need a fighter. Priests weren't over powered. Anyways I don't care how they do attributes. What I like to see is a infinity engine dnd inspired game that has more depth to offer then its meta game, story and hack and slash.

[Jarmo]

  you devote effort to activities that develop one or the other and reap the reward of your efforts eventually. In this respect, the "define your character through your play" philosophy that has recently become popular (and which I have tended to view as leading to dumbed-down mechanics) is actually more valid and consistent with the real world.  

 

 

Mcmanusaur: That's a very good point. I'd love to see something like that, attributes some restriction for the rare attribute increment to what exercises the character in question have been repeating,  

 

If I got this right and if I remember correctly, ES Oblivion had a system like this. 

Learn skills by doing, on levelup you get to put points on attributes (or skills related to) you've been practicing.

 

While I kind of liked it, it did lead to nasty side effects, like players hopping everywhere instead of running, to better improve acrobatics and agility.

Or jumping down the cliff for combined acrobatics - first aid workout. Spending a few hours sneaking beside some sleeping guards.

 

Realistically... yeah, if you sneak and jump around all the time you should get better doing those.

And if you practice magic all the time, you should get better at doing magic,

gain better concentration and maybe intelligence if you keep several illusions around you constantly.

 

Turns out though,  it doesn't make for as fun gameplay as one might think.

I hated how Skyrim dumbed the system down, removing classes and attributes.

But I have to admit the gameplay did actually improve for it.

[Jarmo]

I'd like increasing attributes. Not JRPG style Strength goes from 14 to 2330,

but I would still like to see high level characters going near or superhuman levels.

 

 

A high level fighter being able to withstand several direct crossbow bolt hits,

or call up enough adrenaline to hit with the strength of many men.

 

A high level rogue skilled and agile enough to run on water or jump over an ogre.

[Archmage Silver]

Increasing slowly would be my choice. Health/stamina could easily increase at every level though, provided that they have a governing attribute.

[sirchet]

I really like to roll up my characters.

 

Just PLEASE do not dumb down the character creation to suit a few players who think character creation, or stat rolling is ... Dumb, I believe someone called it.

[curryinahurry]

Considering what we know about the game, I'm leaning towards fixed attributes.  We know that there will  be a dual hp system in which stamina will decrease more rapidly than health, but will also replenish between encounters.  It also seems like spell casting will be based on soul power as opposed to straight up thresholds tied to ability scores.  Couple these with Obsidian's desire to make all stats relevant (at least marginally) to all classes, and rising attributes may not make a lot of sense. At least in the D&D buy a point every x level manner.

 

One thing that could be done with attributes in a system like this is to have them altered by skills and feats as an abstraction of the, "learning by doing" system.  For example, a fighter might start with a 50 score in stamina, a rogue 40, and a mage 35.  Over the next 3 levels they take the feats; power attack (f), Dodge (t), empower spell (m) (sorry about using D&D nomenclature).  They also add points in the following skills; Style: Shield Combat (f), Acrobatics (t), Armored Casting (m).  The effect on traits could then be:

 

Fighter - 1 strength point for Power attack,  1 stamina point for Combat Style

Thief -  1 Agility point for Dodge, 2 stamina points for (or 1 point attribute increase ) acrobatics

Mage - 1 Stamina point for Empower Spell, and 2 Stamina points for Armored casting.

 

At 3rd level the resultant stamina scores would be: Fighter - 51, Rogue - 42, Mage - 38

 

This could be done independent of attributes for Stamina and health; it could also be fine tuned to increase attribute scores infrequently (like 1 stamina point for 5 ranks of armored casting, etc)

Edited June 10, 2013 by curryinahurry

[khango]

I'm not a big fan of Diablo Style levelling or of Oblivion-Skyrim-Bethesda style levelling.

But I also hate having to roll like 90 times to get something decent.

I think I'd be okay with allocating a fixed number of stat points and then maybe getting 1 to 5 more over the course of the entire game if I'm really lucky.

[TrashMan]

 

However, it's really all in how everything's handled, and what it's actually representing, specifically. Because, again, Bruce Lee was smaller than I am, and probably was smaller than a lot of big wrestlers, and yet he was STILL far stronger.

 

I don't know if anyone actually measured bruces strength, but as any active martial artist, it is safe to assume he was pretty strong (for his size).
 

Now, there are a few exceptional individuals who are born with a fluke so that they can use far higher percentage of muscle fibers than a normal man. They are literaly 3-5 times stronger than a normal human, but run a very high risk of breaking their bones or ripping their muscles.

[TrashMan]

Attribute range from1-20 hits a sweet spot with me.

 

1-10 is barely enough and anything lower just lacks destinction betwen characters or requirements.

Anything over becomes too cumbersome and increases too redicolous.

[Morgulon the Wise]

What I get out of the Sawyer quotes is that we may see something that combines mental and physical attributes so as to make each attribute hypothetically valuable to all classes:

Power (Offensive Strength/Wisdom)

Health (Constitution)

Fortitude (Endurance/Willpower)

Finesse (Agility/Dexterity/Intelligence)

Perception (Awareness)

Appeal (Attractiveness/Charisma)

This rids the "simulationist" distinction between the mental and physical in favor of a zero-sum game- with no pointless stats like Wisdom for a Barbarian- regardless of class.

 

STR = CHA

CON = WIS

DEX = INT

 

Charisma is your force of personality and how much you can dominate or will other people to do what you want. Charismatic characters are often portrayed as having stronger souls or Charisma is used as the key attribute for spellcasters that use their personal power instead of book learning or drawing from an outside source. These reasons are why Charisma is your mental Strength.

 

Intelligence is your mental agility. How quickly can you think and how flexible is your deductive reasoning. Intelligence is your mental Dexterity.

 

 

 

I like this way of thinking although the first example is a bit too vague with too many items and the second might be too simple but I like this linkedness.

 

I combined a bit.

I liked 4 attributes with 3 layers of manifestation which are based on: body, brains and personality

 

 

force (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

 

 

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.

 

Speed is dependent on force.

The soul is part of everything - only muscular strength and constitution might keep on its level if it is taken or weakened.

 

Dependant which class you choose, your character should have another access to these 4 attributes. Still he/she should gain from all of the 3 layers.

A mage with a lot of force might have some more self esteem and might also be able to wield a heavy mace quite effectively by channeling some magical power into his arm.

 

Skills should become available with a certain experience and matching attributes. Which should by the way only raised by up to 5 points by special events (for every event every group member gets one free point to distribute). An attribute can get at most raised by 2 through this procedure.

 

Have you any ideas to develop this system?

[Iucounu]

Hell, two pages of posts within only 2 days. Those were the days I guess.

 

I alway liked the idea that the actual attributes wouldn't be the is-state of your character, but would more or less define the potential that a character has and what maximum he can reach through natural ways of training. But the is-state attributes could grow with each level then, nothing against that. 

 

 

Speed is dependent on force.

There are fast muscles and more resilient muscles though, so I think it's legit to abstract the whole thing into kind of strength and flexibility/mobility/dexterity/speed/whatever. Maybe if you're not so strong and use a two-handed hammer, it should slow you down. But just because you are strong enough to wield a heavy hammer, shouldn't mean that you have a higher natural speed then say, someone who can only fight with daggers due to low strength.