Skill Points

[rjshae]

At some point I think it was mentioned that level-up skill points would be divided between combat and non-combat skills. Assuming that the skills can be improved somewhat as in D&D, I wonder if that could be taken further and have the two skill point totals be modified based on different attributes? In D&D 3e, for example, the total skill points are determined by the class of the character and their Int score. What if, in PE, the non-combat skill points are based upon the Int modifier, while the combat-related skill points are based upon the Dex modifier (or perhaps the Str modifier)? Would that idea make sense?

[Sacred_Path]

It would mean you probably wouldn't see a fighter character with low Dex (Agi, w/e). While that may be somewhat realistic (how many able swordsmen are clumsy and slow?) it would limit character building more than I'd like.

 

What I would have liked to see is a non-combat, non-magic use for Int such as determining skill points. But that won't happen I think

[Lephys]

It would mean you probably wouldn't see a fighter character with low Dex (Agi, w/e). While that may be somewhat realistic (how many able swordsmen are clumsy and slow?) it would limit character building more than I'd like.

 

What I would have liked to see is a non-combat, non-magic use for Int such as determining skill points. But that won't happen I think

 

I don't know about swordsman, because we don't see many of those on a daily basis, but there are plenty of brawler-types in real life who are slow and highly un-agile but are quite strong and durable. They don't care if they hit you in the face or block your punches... they just keep swinging until you get tired, or your arm gets injured by theirs, or they take advantage of the fact that they didn't even worry about dodging or blocking your attack to now karate-chop your elbow in half when your punch connects.

 

Low-dex doesn't mean you're a sloth. It just means you lack precision and nimbleness. A bull might have low dexterity, but it can still charge your arse and stab about with its horns quite speedily.

 

Also, the only problem with the example of INT determining skill points (as it does in a lot of other RPGs, and I think in many of the versions of the D&D ruleset, as rjshae pointed out above) is that the characters who need INT for other reasons (magicky reasons, generally) will have 92-times the skill points of the characters who receive no other benefit from INT (warriors and such). So, you either have to alter the value of skill points for various classes (in which case warriors could STILL sacrifice STR and CON for INT and get even more skill points than anyone else possibly could), or alter the benefits of the stats for the different classes. OR just make the secondary benefit something other than skill point determination.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it creates a problem that must then be addressed somehow, and it's one of those "this tweak affects lots of other things within the system" puzzles. If you can find the right adjustments, then awesome,

 

We actually had a nice little discussion of the possibilities of multiple benefits for the various character stats in another thread. I'll see if I can find it. Things were suggested such as DEX increasing your critical chance (with physical weaponry, as magic crit could be based on something else for magic folk) and INT increasing your critical damage (as you'd be able to make more effective critical wounds, despite how often you were physically capable of doing so.) It's just an example of an option and wasn't hashed out all the way to see if it created any other holes (or if something else might work better), but that would provide a decent trade-off for the sacrifice of STR and CON for fighters and the like. Likewise, you could have typically non-caster stats like STR and CON affect something like casting concentration (increased resistance to physical blows and effects, as separate from the mental speed and ability of concentration itself.) *le shrug*

 

And @rjshae, I like the idea of having different stats/attributes affect skill points for different classes. It seems like either that would have to be the case, or you'd have to have something other than stats/attributes decide skill points. Maybe a set amount per level, OR even just the opportunity for a set amount per level. What if a level up allowed you to EITHER take 2 skill points and upgrade existing abilities or HP pool or something (basically "convert" the skill points into a different form of character improvement, so to speak) OR take 5 skill points and nothing else? This would still allow lower-skill characters with more ability variety or more focused damage or higher health pools, etc, alongside characters (of the same class and level) with higher skill focuses and, therefore access to abilities with higher skill requirements, as well as better skill checks, etc.

 

To put it simply, you could have the stealthiest Rogue known to man with only a few extremely effective abilities (he can backstab you in the chest from 10 feet away with a throwing knife) OR a Rogue of the same level with a lot less skill bonus but many more abilities and more combat utility. Amongst hundreds of other permutations of character builds, depending upon exactly which instead-of-more-skill-points choices are allowed.

[TRX850]

What if your STR bonus dictated how many points you could assign to STR-related skills on level-up, and your DEX bonus dictated how many points for DEX-related skills, and your WIS bonus..... etc. (or whatever the P:E abilities will be).

 

At least then the number of skill points would be roughly equal for each party member on level-up. Rather than wizards or rogues having inherently more due to high INT or high allocation of class skill points.

 

The only downside to that is, historically, skills linked with ability scores were never evenly distributed across all 6 abilities, so fighters would almost always have fewer STR-related skills available to them, while rogues had a smorgasbord of DEX-related skills, and so on.

 

Why should it be purely INT that decides how you've grown in skills? Just putting that question out there, that's all.

 

Edit:

 

If you practice a particular skill long enough, you tend to get better at it, regardless of your measure of intelligence (probably).

 

And apologies if this has already been suggested.

Edited January 12, 2013 by TRX850

[AGX-17]

At some point I think it was mentioned that level-up skill points would be divided between combat and non-combat skills. Assuming that the skills can be improved somewhat as in D&D, I wonder if that could be taken further and have the two skill point totals be modified based on different attributes? In D&D 3e, for example, the total skill points are determined by the class of the character and their Int score. What if, in PE, the non-combat skill points are based upon the Int modifier, while the combat-related skill points are based upon the Dex modifier (or perhaps the Str modifier)? Would that idea make sense?

 

It's kind of important to keep in mind that P:E will not be using any D&D systems. It also seems as though these developers have learned over the years not to make one single attribute the catch-all "combat improving attribute." After all, how would increasing dexterity make your warhammer hit harder?

[Sacred_Path]

I don't know about swordsman, because we don't see many of those on a daily basis, but there are plenty of brawler-types in real life who are slow and highly un-agile but are quite strong and durable.

 

That's the very reason why I cited swordfighting (but any fighting that involves blades really). I doubt that a human could compensate for an extreme lack of agility on the battlefield by simply being stronger. Of course, non-human races could be so tough that their lack of reactions is made up for by strength, but I think the Auamaua (prime suspects here) aren't that different in size.

[rjshae]

At some point I think it was mentioned that level-up skill points would be divided between combat and non-combat skills. Assuming that the skills can be improved somewhat as in D&D, I wonder if that could be taken further and have the two skill point totals be modified based on different attributes? In D&D 3e, for example, the total skill points are determined by the class of the character and their Int score. What if, in PE, the non-combat skill points are based upon the Int modifier, while the combat-related skill points are based upon the Dex modifier (or perhaps the Str modifier)? Would that idea make sense?

 

It's kind of important to keep in mind that P:E will not be using any D&D systems. It also seems as though these developers have learned over the years not to make one single attribute the catch-all "combat improving attribute." After all, how would increasing dexterity make your warhammer hit harder?

Dexterity represents, among other factors, your muscle memory. Thus, while it wouldn't necessarily represent striking harder with your warhammer, it may represent how adept you are at getting past your enemy's defenses. It would represent your increasing ability to block, parry, or dodge an attack. It also includes your increasing skill at athletic ability. I don't think your intelligence score necessarily represents improvement in these areas, other than perhaps tactical planning and leadership.

[Lephys]

That's the very reason why I cited swordfighting (but any fighting that involves blades really). I doubt that a human could compensate for an extreme lack of agility on the battlefield by simply being stronger. Of course, non-human races could be so tough that their lack of reactions is made up for by strength, but I think the Auamaua (prime suspects here) aren't that different in size.

 

Yeah, I know it's a little different when you incorporate the strength and sharpness of metal, and I wasn't trying to be snide or anything. I only meant that I wasn't very personally familiar with the specifics of what someone could or could not do with swords specifically because they're very rare nowadays.

 

But, I think the thing that still carries over is that part of the skill of a master swordsman is being quite adept at blocking. It's not necessarily that you literally dodge everything automatically because you're a master swordsman, or that you just kill everyone before they can even swing or attack. It's that you're so good at redirecting your opponent's strikes. Well, your master ability to parry and block is going to be affected by the difference between a 160-lb man who's trying to out-skill you and a 300-lb muscle-mass who's literally trying to crush you flat with a sharp edge. He's not necessarily going to swing slowly (because muscle can move with remarkable speed), he's only going to react slowly. But he doesn't care about reacting. If he swings horizontally at you with all his might, normally you'd read the start of that attack and prepare to block or dodge or redirect it so as to provide an opening immediately afterward (allow his momentum to miss you but delay his recovery to block or attack differently). But, you're going to have more trouble blocking or parrying that swing.

 

That's all I'm getting at. I don't know the exact effects of that in swordplay, but I know it changes factors. If you block wrong, the shock of his weapon blow transferring through your weapon in parrying could actually damage your arm muscle. Basically, he's so much stronger than you are, it'd be like trying to use swordplay against a bear with a sword, or a rock elemental (assuming you could still cut it and it would bleed, but its swings have the strength and added weight of stone). Your technique counts for less in many ways because you're not really dealing with someone with whom you're on-par in several respects.

 

Honestly, I'd be very interested in seeing how this applies in real life. Just how effective someone can be by relying on strength (still practicing the sword and using good attack form, at the very least, but lacking finesse, defense, and parry skill).

[Sacred_Path]

Yeah, I know it's a little different when you incorporate the strength and sharpness of metal, and I wasn't trying to be snide or anything. I only meant that I wasn't very personally familiar with the specifics of what someone could or could not do with swords specifically because they're very rare nowadays.

 

But, I think the thing that still carries over is that part of the skill of a master swordsman is being quite adept at blocking. It's not necessarily that you literally dodge everything automatically because you're a master swordsman, or that you just kill everyone before they can even swing or attack. It's that you're so good at redirecting your opponent's strikes. Well, your master ability to parry and block is going to be affected by the difference between a 160-lb man who's trying to out-skill you and a 300-lb muscle-mass who's literally trying to crush you flat with a sharp edge. He's not necessarily going to swing slowly (because muscle can move with remarkable speed), he's only going to react slowly. But he doesn't care about reacting. If he swings horizontally at you with all his might, normally you'd read the start of that attack and prepare to block or dodge or redirect it so as to provide an opening immediately afterward (allow his momentum to miss you but delay his recovery to block or attack differently). But, you're going to have more trouble blocking or parrying that swing.

 

That's all I'm getting at. I don't know the exact effects of that in swordplay, but I know it changes factors. If you block wrong, the shock of his weapon blow transferring through your weapon in parrying could actually damage your arm muscle. Basically, he's so much stronger than you are, it'd be like trying to use swordplay against a bear with a sword, or a rock elemental (assuming you could still cut it and it would bleed, but its swings have the strength and added weight of stone). Your technique counts for less in many ways because you're not really dealing with someone with whom you're on-par in several respects.

 

Honestly, I'd be very interested in seeing how this applies in real life. Just how effective someone can be by relying on strength (still practicing the sword and using good attack form, at the very least, but lacking finesse, defense, and parry skill).

 

That would be an argument for basing combat skills on both STR and DEX though, or on STR respectively DEX for different weapons. Which would be ok IMO and would allow for some variety. When I said "realistic" I assumed DEX to be the only stat that controlled reflexes and coordination though, and I don't think anyone would have much success in combat without either. Though that has to do with survivability as well.

[Lephys]

That would be an argument for basing combat skills on both STR and DEX though, or on STR respectively DEX for different weapons. Which would be ok IMO and would allow for some variety. When I said "realistic" I assumed DEX to be the only stat that controlled reflexes and coordination though, and I don't think anyone would have much success in combat without either. Though that has to do with survivability as well.

 

True, true. I didn't really focus enough on the fact that the stats are abstract representations of the sum of our abilities (like reflexes and coordination). I guess my point only covers a certain range of that (as stats stand now, without splitting their effects on weaponry and combat abilities). As in, maybe a Warrior with 7 Dex and 20 STR could still present a challenge to someone with 12 STR and 14 DEX, but at some point you're just going to suck... unless you're 70-feet tall like a giant ancient guardian or dragon or something. They can have slow reflexes, because you have to run 20-feet to get out from under their smashy, smashy fists/tails/appendages. But yeah... 3 DEX Warrior with 20 STR? He's gonna have some pretty major issues, I suppose.

 

But, yes, I would like to see some aspects (like combat skills and weapon effectiveness/damage) split between multiple stats. I think that way you run a lot less risk of hitting that minimum with so many things (i.e. your 5 DEX means you literally can't hit anything because your entire ability to hit is founded in your DEX score, and also maybe your weapon damage suffers.) Also, you give those other "useless" stats (INT for a warrior, STR for a Mage, etc.) a purpose, and create more variation in viable builds.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Lephys