Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But why should the stats increase that much? I'm interested in the why of it, more so than the what.

 

......

"We killed so many orcs yesterday, I'm HELLA Charismatic, now! 8D!!!!!"

 

Well it's going to be abstracted hell and back anyway, gaining abilities and skills when adventuring.

 

But basically... why not?

You're getting better all the time, why not get better statswise as well?

 

If you're a fighter, we'd pretty much expect you to gain new skills during the course.

You'd hit three times when you used to hit once, you do more damage with each hit.

Makes sense to me you'd have gained some strength or dexterity alongside the skill points.

 

Or if you're a rogue and learn new leaps and bounds, get a lot better at picking locks and all rogue things,

Why not gain some dexterity, or charisma from doing charismatic things.

 

Or if you're a mage and do a lot of research and apply the research and generally you're being clever all the time.

Maybe you not only learn new knowledge, but you also learn to be better at learning? More int or more wis.

 

Now the system could of course either track what you do and only allow you to spend the points on stats you've been using.

Or the system could be rigid and only give fighters STR, DEX or CON, while rogues could choose from DEX, INT or CHA.

 

But why go there. Better the player gets to make the choice.

It's not like an average player of crazy barbarian would go putting points in WIZ or CHA.

Most likely they'd go appropriately into STR or CON.

Edited by Jarmo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say they should never increase. The key aspect of my question was the words "that much" at the end.

 

Sheikh suggested that gaining 1 stat point per level would be a good idea. But, if you put all those into the same stat (or even just most of them), that's like 10 Strength you could gain over the course of the game, regardless of whatever your starting Strength was. Unless the stat range goes from like 1-100, that's like 5-10% of your overall Strength per point.

 

So, if you make a Fighter at the beginning of the game, and he starts with 17 Strength, then he's already pretty strong. That means that all the stuff he already did/does, to get to where he's a capable, albeit novice, Fighter, have already resulted in him being that strong. So, why, after a year or two of adventuring, should he have 25 Strength, when other people who've been soldiers their entire lives still only have like 18 or 19 (because that's a ridiculously strong person, as set forth by the abstraction of the entire range of the Strengths of existing peoples)?

 

That's what I'm getting at. Your stats already sort of more permanently define your character's capabilities, as opposed to another character. If you can just make a Wizard with maxed-out INT and WIS and DEX, then increase your Constitution by 1 every level until you have as many hitpoints as a same-level Fighter, then what was the point in you being a low-CON Wizard instead of a high-CON one?

 

"I started the game as an imbecile, but NOW I'm one of the kingdom's leading minds! 8D!" That just doesn't seem very feasible, unless everyone in the world goes through that kind of change in the same amount of time. In which case... man, the world would be insane.

 

To put it another way: If you can start with 17 Strength at age... ohh, whatever makes you an adult (18... 20?), and gain 10 points of Strength over the next couple of years, then why did it take you 18-20 years just to get 17 Strength? Surely body-builders would have like 947 Strength at that point, because handling some quests and performing some feats increases your Strength by 5-10% of your current value.

 

When you can already get better weapons, and increase your skill and effectiveness with weapons, there's no need for you to be able to transform from an average person into the Incredible Hulk, purely over the course of your travels.

Edited by Lephys
  • Like 2

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I started the game as an imbecile, but NOW I'm one of the kingdom's leading minds! 8D!" That just doesn't seem very feasible, unless everyone in the world goes through that kind of change in the same amount of time. In which case... man, the world would be insane.

 

In theory the answer would be: Because you went through turbulations nobody else in the entire world has experienced.

You were pulled into a magical vortex of events that thoroughly changed what you are down to the core level of your being.

 

.. if it's that kind of story.

 

In practice though, I agree. One point per level sounds a bit much, at least if we're talking D&D point scale.

But if the base stats were 3d12 instead of standard 3d6, then a point per level wouldn't be too much.

 

Or if it was a choice between a new ability or a stat point, then maybe that'd be fine as well,

because it just wouldn't be feasible to go all strength and skip all new abilities.

Edited by Jarmo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I mean, there's some flexibility there, obviously, but, in short, the ability to start as a weak person and end as a strong person (or dumb-smart person, etc.) kind of defeats the whole purpose of there being a distinction between weak and strong and dumb and smart at character creation. You get better with a sword, and perfect techniques, and maybe you learn to juggle, and accumulate knowledge, etc. But it is to a MUCH lesser degree that you actually gain Dexterity itself, for example. Getting better with a Bow is a skill improvement, not an improvement to your actual precision-based capability.

 

I have good eyesight, but it's not because I looked at things really hard all my life. It's sort of a got-it-or-don't think, and that's mostly what stats are. That being said, I do understand the gamey aspect of stat progression. And some things (like Strength) are actually vulnerable to variation. But, (and there's been discussion about this in this very thread), it seems like even Strength is suggesting your potential, rather than your physical amount of muscle mass at a given point in time. Otherwise, if you made a Wizard with 20 Strength, and never did anything the whole time, he should really LOSE Strength as he goes, for failing to maintain all that Hulk bulk.

 

*shrug*

 

I just think there are PLENTY of things to increase and progress without having to take away the "these are your characters distinctive strengths and weaknesses, as separate from any other given character's" aspect of attributes.

  • Like 2

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Intelligence is knowing things.Wisdom is knowing how to use Intelligence.

Minor correction, if I may. Intelligence is the rate at which one is able to learn and understand things.Wisdom is, indeed, the efficient use of those learned things to learn and understand new things (or existing things to a better extent).Or, to put it simply:Intelligence is the ability to gain knowledge.Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge.Neither is, itself, aggregate knowledge.And @Karkarov, I'm aware of the reason you didn't include Charisma, and the problems with tying beauty to it. I was just making an example with many existing systems. That's all. Sorry aboot that.

I have to disagree, you're speaking of aptitude when you say the ability and or rate at which you can learn things, intelligence is things already learned. I think of an intelligence score as a measure of knowledge learned, not the potential to learn more.

 

To put it simpler; you can gain intelligence from reading a book or attending a lecture, going out into the world and actually using the knowledge gained is where wisdom comes in.

Help is good when asked for,

Better when needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have to disagree, you're speaking of aptitude when you say the ability and or rate at which you can learn things, intelligence is things already learned. I think of an intelligence score as a measure of knowledge learned, not the potential to learn more.

 

To put it simpler; you can gain intelligence from reading a book or attending a lecture, going out into the world and actually using the knowledge gained is where wisdom comes in.

 

You're thinking a little gamey. Common sense and science wouldn't use these terms in the way you do. Maybe this would mean a bit too "realistic" approach, but I think this could make the game understandable.

 

Intelligence isn't simply gained through reading a book. It consists particularly of the memory but is also the ability to gain knowledge. Wisdom is all about the "right" or efficient use of it (which is also a part of the intelligence from a scientific viewpoint ^^).

 

My question is meanwhile: Why should we use these terms of DnD at all? How does the stat system work in P:E yet? They have developed the character classes up to level 5 or so. Why don't they show their stat system?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd describe wisdom simply as the ability to see the "broader picture".

But of course, a definition like the one from Lephys, where it's about using knowledge, would give you more possibilities of using a wisdom stat in a game, and provides a finer or clearer distinction between intelligence and wisdom.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

We ARE discussing a game and as such, the way the statistics are represented need to have a direct connection to character function and playability.

 

I understand you put a lot of thought into your stat system, but please let's not limit the discussion to your defense of this system.

 

Opinions can become clouded when they are turned into an objection.

  • Like 1

Help is good when asked for,

Better when needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We ARE discussing a game and as such, the way the statistics are represented need to have a direct connection to character function and playability.

 

I understand you put a lot of thought into your stat system, but please let's not limit the discussion to your defense of this system.

 

Opinions can become clouded when they are turned into an objection.

 

This, why over complicate things when they will add nothing of value to the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree, you're speaking of aptitude when you say the ability and or rate at which you can learn things, intelligence is things already learned. I think of an intelligence score as a measure of knowledge learned, not the potential to learn more.

So... let me get this straight. Games have all gotten it wrong with Dexterity this whole time? When you increase your skill with a bow, you're accumulating skill, which should increase your Dexterity, but it's been increasing your bow skill all this time? In other words, instead of Dexterity being your potential to aim a bow with maximum accuracy, it should be your accumulated skill/aptitude with a bow?

 

Also, how does your version of Intelligence serve to represent an illiterate genius who figures out how to build a geo-thermal generator in half the time it takes another, literate person to read a comprehensive book the matter and learn the same task?

 

Why is it that, when people don't understand something, their intelligence comes into question, and not their wisdom?

 

Wisdom deals more with understanding the limitations of your knowledge, and accounting for the things you don't know. That's why it's wise to prepare yourself in advance before venturing off into some ruins after increased knowledge.

 

Your wisdom, there, isn't directly gaining you knowledge. It's simply preventing your lack of knowledge (of what you'll face in the ruins/what could possibly happen to you) from killing you before you get to use your intelligence further.

 

Wisdom deals more with judgement than with knowledge gain, whereas Intelligence affects your direct interaction with knowledge.

 

Again: An Intelligent person can acquire/comprehend the same bit of knowledge in less time and/or with fewer resources than a less-Intelligent person can. Plus, some people simply read an entire book and cannot comprehend it, because they are limited by their Intelligence. How could the quantity of knowledge you've accumulated dictate the quantity of knowledge you are able to accumulate? That doesn't make any sense.

 

Also, if other stats (such as the Dexterity example above) DO represent your general potential to advance in something, then why doesn't mental stuff get represented in this respect? Your version of Intelligence simply represents aggregate knowledge, and Wisdom simply represents your ability to put knowledge to use.

 

What, then, separates the fast-learner from the slow-learner, or the person who can comprehend almost anything in the world from the person who can only comprehend 5% of things in the world?

 

Some people have no hand-eye coordination, no matter how much they practice. Thus, a low DEX score represents this. Some people have INSANE amounts of hand-eye coordination, from the second they ever even try to practice with it. Is it not the role of attributes to indicate these inherent differences in people, and the role of skills and the like to indicate the more changing accumulations of specific amounts of ability/knowledge?

 

Hence, 2 characters can have a skill of 100 with bows (or all the bow feats, if there's not a skill... whichever), yet one can have a DEX score of 14, and one can have a DEX score of 20. The one with a DEX of 20 is always going to be better than the one with 14, even though they both have all the bow knowledge, skill on can have.

 

Otherwise, everyone in the entire world who mastered the bow would have a DEX of 20, just like everyone who read everything in a library would have an INT of 20. There would be no "Oh, that took me a lot longer to read, and I only understand about half of it" people among the intelligent. They'd all be "geniuses" via practice.

 

Why is it, do you think that we pick these attributes/stats at character creation, rather than simply everyone starting with the same thing and having them develop throughout the game? Why do you think they impact such a broad range of things?

 

Why are there even Knowledge skills, with skill checks to see if you can decipher some ruins on the wall (against your current knowledge; whether or not you know what those ruins are already), if Intelligence is supposed to serve the same purpose? A bit redundant, I'd say.

Edited by Lephys
  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Lephys: signed!

 

But some gamers seem to think simplicity is the best way to the playflow - although it also can be done with complexity and depth - to me the coherency is most important.

 

 

I understand you put a lot of thought into your stat system, but please let's not limit the discussion to your defense of this system.

 

Thanks for acknowledging the effort. I just don't want to defend, but explain it. (Which system exactly do you mean :biggrin:?) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Lephys: signed!

 

But some gamers seem to think simplicity is the best way to the playflow - although it also can be done with complexity and depth - to me the coherency is most important.

Yeah, I'm really not even understanding the whole "let's not overcomplicate this" sentiment here, either. We're dealing with two stats (INT and WIS) either way. It seems the more simplistic way to handle it is to let skills (which already govern accumulated knowledge/aptitude) govern one thing, and let stats govern another. Boom.

 

Trying to see if this character can understand this book? Check his INT. Trying to see if this character can answer a question or perform a given task with his given knowledge? Check his skill. That seems pretty simple.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

 

I have to disagree, you're speaking of aptitude when you say the ability and or rate at which you can learn things, intelligence is things already learned. I think of an intelligence score as a measure of knowledge learned, not the potential to learn more.

 

To put it simpler; you can gain intelligence from reading a book or attending a lecture, going out into the world and actually using the knowledge gained is where wisdom comes in.

 

Intelligence isn't just your existing knowledge.  It also encompasses a wide range of learning and reasoning abilities such as your ability to learn, retain and recall knowledge; your ability to use existing knowledge for problem solving both quantitative and abstract; and the ability to read and write, and reading comprehension.   It also reflects how efficiently you process information and the speed at which that process take place.    (I would suggest looking up the CHC theory for more details.)

 

 

Wisdom is more about using good judgment.  It's not totally separate from intelligence because clearly your past knowledge and experiences play a critical role in the decisions you make.   One definition says:  "[wisdom is] the ability or result of an ability to think and act utilizing knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight".

 

On the general topic of fixed or increasing stats, sign me up for increasing stats.  Without more details on how the base attribute system is going to work, I won't even begin to speculate on what the proper rate of increase is.

Edited by kgambit
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't know the system they're going with, but speaking proportionally, I always find it pretty preposterous when in the average course of adventuring you can DOUBLE your stats or similar. Given you're only focussing upon people who are at least able-bodied enough to be adventuring in the first place, the range of human(oid) ability is not that wide. Unless of course the fluff for one of the races is that there actually is a tremendous diversity in their capability, which might be interesting. My preference would be that the 'best' adventurer not really be more than say 33% better than an 'average' adventurer.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...