Josh Sawyer reveals some information about Project Eternity's attribute scores

[J. Trudel]

 

I gotta say, I hate the idea of any playable race having bonuses or penalties to attributes, unless there is a specific physical or mental difference within the lore that would affect them - and even then, I would rather they start out better at certain skills (e.g. Halflings are smaller than humans, and thus have a bonus to Dodge and Sneak), or have skills exclusive to their race (e.g. natural Waterbreathing for Argonians in TES).

 

But I hate all that -2 to INT junk, because there's something so horribly phrenological about it. You're basically saying that orcs can never be as smart as humans, because they're orcs. No matter what they do, they will always be two points behind a human of otherwise equivalent intelligence. Which poses a problem, because you then have to either impose limits within the fiction to justify the stat difference, thus automatically casting characters of certain races into certain molds and limiting creative possibilities, or you have to ignore the stat difference entirely, which leads to an unresolved schism between mechanics and fiction.

 

This is to say nothing of the human-centric way these scores are always plotted. Why should the human standard for intelligence be the only standard?

 

I agree with you that minuses and pluses for attributes isn't best way to go. And I also think skill bonuses or exclusive skills is better way to differentiate races from each other. Although I think that you could make some attributes cheaper and some more expensive to obtain for different races, for example intelligence (or equivalent) could cost orcs more than it cost humans, but strength (or equivalent) is cheaper. And this is to reflect that fact there are more likely be strong orcs than intelligent ones, but you could still make intelligent orc if you want, but it could mean that you may need to let some of your attributes to be lower than what would be "typical" for orc build. This system of course works only if you buy attributes instead of throwing them.

 

 

I do have to agree that a Perk aproach to diferencing races is superior. Having equal stats remove the dump race problems. For example an elf might get a Nimble perk which allow them to move a bit faster and dodge better but render them a bit more frail while an Orc would get the ''Brute'' perk which would make them hit harder and last longer at the expense of concentration. 

 

The way I see it, Stats are very ''situational'' I'm pretty sure an Orc would have a better ''survival'' Intelligence than a human. So I think all ''playable'' races should have equal stats, it gives freedom in design. 

[jethro]

I think it is absolutely justified for D&D to reflect physiological differences in stats. Where D&D goes wrong (in their abstraction of reality and how to balance this) though is in their further distribution of stats to abilities. For example dex and int should also have influence on your offensive fighting ability, constitution should have an influence the longer the fight lasts. That way a -2 to STR could be evened out by putting more points into those other stats (where that race might even have +2).

 

It might be more realistic for races to have differences, sure.  And that a race is very bad at a given class is a nice touch if there is a reason for it (dwarfs and magic for example). But I really think it is bad for an RPG if exactly one race is the best at something. Because it removes too much choice from most players party creation/selection. 9 out of 10 players would be literally forced to create the elf wizard because +2 to int is just too strong a lure. "Reality" be damned, choice for the player in this case is more important.

 

One idea voiced here is actually pretty damn good (for D&D at least). Set minimum stats for different races. Doesn't really make any race better at something, but represents physiological difference for verisimilitude. Also maximum stats are a posibillity (which would just make one or two classes per race inferior, but doesn't make any one race superior at a class)

 

For PE on the other hand Saywers goal is presumably to make one class with different stats maxed out viable, so (depending on how good he achieves that) it might even be okay to have a simple bonus on a stat.

Edited August 1, 2013 by jethro

[Elerond]

 

 

A chimp will never be as smart as a healthy human, no matter what he does.

 

This limits creative possibilites; you can't have chimps that are nuclear physicists, for example.

 

 

 

Can you guarantee that there will never be chimp that is as smart as healthy human, even if one is breed and geneticaly manipulated to add intelligence?

 

You think RPG system should take into account people of a race not really belonging to said race?

 

The question is how you define races in RPG system? Are character different race if s/he is breeded and geneticaly manipulated to be most superior specimen of his or her race? Because rpg don't usually follow definition specifications and rules for races or species.

[Sacred_Path]

 

 

 

A chimp will never be as smart as a healthy human, no matter what he does.

 

This limits creative possibilites; you can't have chimps that are nuclear physicists, for example.

 

 

 

Can you guarantee that there will never be chimp that is as smart as healthy human, even if one is breed and geneticaly manipulated to add intelligence?

 

You think RPG system should take into account people of a race not really belonging to said race?

 

The question is how you define races in RPG system? Are character different race if s/he is breeded and geneticaly manipulated to be most superior specimen of his or her race? Because rpg don't usually follow definition specifications and rules for races or species.

 

I think the problem is non-existent, especially because there's often one race for every attribute. So a DnD Orc that has been magically altered to be smarter may simply use the attribute bonuses (none) of a human.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

A chimp will never be as smart as a healthy human, no matter what he does.

 

This limits creative possibilites; you can't have chimps that are nuclear physicists, for example.

 

 

 

Can you guarantee that there will never be chimp that is as smart as healthy human, even if one is breed and geneticaly manipulated to add intelligence?

 

You think RPG system should take into account people of a race not really belonging to said race?

 

The question is how you define races in RPG system? Are character different race if s/he is breeded and geneticaly manipulated to be most superior specimen of his or her race? Because rpg don't usually follow definition specifications and rules for races or species.

 

I think the problem is non-existent, especially because there's often one race for every attribute. So a DnD Orc that has been magically altered to be smarter may simply use the attribute bonuses (none) of a human.

 

 

That works well in p&p games where GM can alter the rules but in computer games that usually needs hacking/modding as computer games rarelly are very flexible with their rule system.

[Ffordesoon]

Sigh.

 

From the looks of things, I didn't make myself clear enough. Or it's not going to matter how clear I am. One of the two.

 

Either way, now that the term "PC" has been used, this is going to turn into a Circular Logic-a-thon From Hell, and I do not have the emotional or mental capacity to deal with that right now.

 

Maybe I can construct a rebuttal that doesn't involve me coming across as the stereotypical Shrill Liberal later. We'll see. But, for right now, I'm out.

[tajerio]

I've never had a problem with boni or mali to the physical stats, whether they be STR, CON, DEX, or something else entirely.  Because at least for those we have some understanding of what that means genetically.  But what do boni or mali to INT, WIS, CHA or any other mental stats mean in terms of the actual genetic makeup of a sentient species?  I don't think we know.  What innately produces charisma?  Or greater insight?  Analytical capability?  We really have no idea.

 

Take the half-orc example.  Does the -2 to charisma mean that he's got genetically less interpersonal magnetism?  Or does it really mean that he's viewed in such a way by human-dominated cultures because he's not like them and looks strange?  There's nothing concrete that can be tied to the changes to mental stats for any race, unlike those for physical stats.

[Ffordesoon]

I've never had a problem with boni or mali to the physical stats, whether they be STR, CON, DEX, or something else entirely. Because at least for those we have some understanding of what that means genetically. But what do boni or mali to INT, WIS, CHA or any other mental stats mean in terms of the actual genetic makeup of a sentient species? I don't think we know. What innately produces charisma? Or greater insight? Analytical capability? We really have no idea.

 

Take the half-orc example. Does the -2 to charisma mean that he's got genetically less interpersonal magnetism? Or does it really mean that he's viewed in such a way by human-dominated cultures because he's not like them and looks strange? There's nothing concrete that can be tied to the changes to mental stats for any race, unlike those for physical stats.

This was my point, basically.

[Lephys]

Yeah, I'm not seeing the problem with stat modifiers. If an Orc is typically stronger than, say, a Human, then if someone gets trapped underneath some fallen debris from a building collapse, it could actually make a narrative difference whether you had your strong Orc Warrior there to help them, or your strong Human Warrior. Even with them both being very strong, physically-disciplined specimens of their respective races, the Orc has an advantage. A meaningful one, if the Human isn't strong enough to lift the rubble enough to get the person out. Or, maybe, more realistically, it takes the Human longer to free the person than it does the Orc.

 

Obviously, a weakling Orc would do you no good in that situation. But neither would a weakling Human. Thus it is simply a second layer of depth. If one race has lowlight vision, and another does not, then that provides a dynamic for scenarios involving darkness. Even in the narrative. "It's quite difficult to sneak into this city, because darkness doesn't really hinder these people." That's a mechanical difference, AND it provides a narrative difference. The entire lore and culture of that people is partially affected by how they've been able to protect their cities in the past, or whether or not they typically hide because they're able to spot threats more often than others can, etc.

 

Still, no one's answered the question of "if there weren't any actual mechanical differences at all between any of the races, how different would the races really be?"

 

@tajerio:

 

That's a very good point, but I wouldn't say "mental stats." Intelligence can be likened to processing power, and is drastically affected by the "hardware" of the brain. Brains are physically different between animal species, and so would probably be between different actual races of humanoid/sapient creatures. The Charisma thing I get, though. And Wisdom, as well. But, those are more intangible things.

 

I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with the reaction aspect of Charisma. If there was a race of nightmarish spiderpeople, I don't doubt a vast majority of people would instinctively be terrified of their apperance, at the very least. We're built with survival instincts. Heights, size, speed, etc. That's why someone who's as kind and gentle as a fly could appear quite intimidating, despite their intentions. This is a physical reaction.

 

That isn't to say there isn't a non-physical aspect, too. Reputation. "Society has deemed these specific people to possess intangible-yet-terrifying traits!" Sure. And that should be SEPARATE from any kind of Charisma modifier, but that doesn't mean an aspect of Charisma (inherent reaction to physical presence/aesthetics) doesn't warrant a modifier at all. I think the biggest problem with Charisma is that it encompasses too many things (at least at times). Heck, a race could even physically emit a pheromone or something that heightens anxiety. Or maybe they are the only race that communicates telepathically, instead of audibly, thus prompting a severe unfamiliarity with other races who aren't used to and cannot communicate in the same fashion. Or, on that note, maybe a race just has a completely different vocal range (like the Elcor in Mass Effect), that's completely uninteresting by at least Human standards (for example). That's a physical difference that begets an inherent reaction modifier, on average.

[alanschu]

 

 

That's a very good point, but I wouldn't say "mental stats." Intelligence can be likened to processing power, and is drastically affected by the "hardware" of the brain. Brains are physically different between animal species, and so would probably be between different actual races of humanoid/sapient creatures. The Charisma thing I get, though. And Wisdom, as well. But, those are more intangible things.

 

The problem is when using abstract references.  What is 18 intellect?  Why can every race but Orc possibly achieve it?

[Lephys]

The problem is when using abstract references.  What is 18 intellect?  Why can every race but Orc possibly achieve it?

A) The presence of racial modifiers doesn't necessarily denote the existence of racial stat caps. Even if 18 is the highest Intelligence anyone can have, maybe an Orc CAN have it, he just has to be 2 points worse at something else to have 2 additional intelligence points. All the -2 means, in abstract mathematical values, is that, all other things remaining the same an Orc's going to have a less capable brain than a human.

 

B) It's not a problem when you abstract everything (relevant) into mathematics. Just because "18 intellect" doesn't tell you everything you could possibly want to know about a given person's intellectual specifics does not mean it's useless or meaningless. What it means is that a person with 18 intellect is obviously more capable of processing information and deducing things than a person with 12 intellect. So, if a person with 12 intellect can't solve a puzzle, or figure out a math problem, despite their best efforts, then a person with 18 might can. Without a point of reference, it's meaningless. All it is is a relationship. If there weren't two actual examples of people with differing intellects, with which to label 12 and 18, then the numbers would serve no purpose. That's why there are oodles of other things in the game representing the more specific details of a given character's brains, so that two characters with an intellect of 18 aren't identical.

[tajerio]

Lephys,

 

I agree with your points on reaction--my point was just that since it's so contextually dependent, and charisma has generally been a stat for interpersonal interaction, it doesn't make sense for races to have a flat malus or bonus unless there is a single culturally dominant race.  Or, as you say, 

 

I also think you're right to say that Intelligence, or whatever stat is being used to represent it, is the stat most plausibly adjustable on the basis of fantasy race.  But I still think that we know so little about intelligence that, unlike a bonus to strength, we don't really know what else a bonus or malus to intelligence would mean for a race.
 

I would like it if races were differentiated by having the narrative world react differently to each race, possibly giving out a couple of skill bonuses, and maybe some minor +/- with physical stats.  That would be quite enough for me.

[JFSOCC]

If you're going to have racial bonuses or drawbacks, they have to work for/against you regardless of what class you pick.

[Lephys]

Lephys,

 

I agree with your points on reaction--my point was just that since it's so contextually dependent, and charisma has generally been a stat for interpersonal interaction, it doesn't make sense for races to have a flat malus or bonus unless there is a single culturally dominant race.  Or, as you say, 

 

I also think you're right to say that Intelligence, or whatever stat is being used to represent it, is the stat most plausibly adjustable on the basis of fantasy race.  But I still think that we know so little about intelligence that, unlike a bonus to strength, we don't really know what else a bonus or malus to intelligence would mean for a race.

 

I would like it if races were differentiated by having the narrative world react differently to each race, possibly giving out a couple of skill bonuses, and maybe some minor +/- with physical stats.  That would be quite enough for me.

I understand what you mean, I believe. I think the problem lies with the attempt to abstractly quantify Intelligence. Which is quite an ambiguous, intangible thing. But, at the same time, failure to represent it leaves some pretty serious gaps in things. Either everyone's of equal intellect, or they're not, and it's just kind of a mystery factor that isn't quantified.

 

But, I just don't really see the problem, even applying such a modifier to an entire race, because it's an adjustment to a relationship. Even if ALL orcs have a -1 to Intelligence, this in no way dictates the Intelligence of a given Orc. Even if Elves have +1 Intelligence, it doesn't mean that a given Orc is less intelligent than a given Elf. It's a purely abstracted thing.

 

0 doesn't mean a race is "the norm." It just means that, statistically, if you measure everyone's intelligence in the entire world, the people of that race fall into the average of all those numbers. Again, it's merely a mathematical representation of a relationship.

 

If everyone on the planet was exposed to the exact same things, in the exact same order, from birth to adulthood, then you could simply measure the rate at which they each learn, and write all that down, and compare. Just because we're exposed to differing things and use our intelligence to differing degrees doesn't mean that quantifiable "hardware" aspect simply vanishes. In that way, it's no different from physical properties, like size/height.

 

It's all a hell of a lot easier to abstract in a video game -- in fiction -- than it is in real life.

 

The point is, there are obvious differences in levels of intellect between individuals, and that's being represented, no matter how accurately. The accuracy isn't even THAT important, as it isn't really trying to represent every little detail involved in what is encompassed by the term "intelligence," anyway.

 

It's simply differences and relationships, statistically recorded between races' physiologies.

[Valorian]

The last update, about the stronghold, revealed an attribute: Strength.

 

So most likely Strength is the attribute that "affects bonus damage (and healing) -- regardless of the weapons or spells being used."

 

 

While I like that they decided to keep the classic name for this attribute and not experiment with various PowerMightBrawniness things, I don't like that it's associated with spell damage (nor would I like Agility being associated with spell accuracy).

"The physical attributes are represented as well as the mental attributes..", Josh said on Formspring, but Strength under this system actually becomes both a physical and a mental stat. Because, this is just my guess, wizards cast spells using their mind and not their muscular strength.

[Lephys]

^ True. Although, in the context of a world in which mental strength translates into the same kinetic capability, I'm not certain there's really much of a functional difference. In other words, I can't think of a Strength check, in-game, that couldn't be performed by both a Wizard's magical might AND a Fighter's honed muscles.

 

It still bugs me, too, though, so I'm with you on that. Even if it's just on the idea. But, I'm still trying to think of ways in which it would functionally cause problems, because it seems like there should be at least something...

 

Hmmm... How would you represent a Fighter who's physically fatigued but mentally quite alert and sharp as distinct from a Wizard who's mentally drained/groggy but is physically energetic as a puppy? I'm not sure if the game mechanics ever need to represent that, with their design, but, IF they do, then that would be an issue. "Check Strength!" Well, that's not going to get us very far. And if they have an indicator for whether it's mental or physical, based on class, then why not have 2 separate attributes? Except for the times when it DOES overlap. But then, you could just have an "or" check there. "Trying to open a door? Check Strength value OR Willpower value."

 

And, on that note, I suppose it might even work to simply have certain classes have ONLY a mental potency attribute, while others have ONLY a physical one. Except, then you wind up with hardly any variety. How strong are Wizards? Well, according to the attribute system, they're quite mentally powerful, but physically, they're all exactly identical pansies. What happens if they, for some reason, have a damper put on their mental powers of potency? Well, apparently they can't even lift pebbles without those powers... Silence a Wizard in full plate? He drops to the ground immediately under the immense weight of his armor, which was only being supported by his constant mental effort.

 

I hope some light is shed on this decision, and how, exactly, the distinction is going to be handled with only "Strength" to go by. If that's the case.

[Sezneg]

The last update, about the stronghold, revealed an attribute: Strength.

 

So most likely Strength is the attribute that "affects bonus damage (and healing) -- regardless of the weapons or spells being used."

 

 

While I like that they decided to keep the classic name for this attribute and not experiment with various PowerMightBrawniness things, I don't like that it's associated with spell damage (nor would I like Agility being associated with spell accuracy).

"The physical attributes are represented as well as the mental attributes..", Josh said on Formspring, but Strength under this system actually becomes both a physical and a mental stat. Because, this is just my guess, wizards cast spells using their mind and not their muscular strength.

 

Do you have a problem internally with having a word "strength" as it applies to both physical strength and mental strength of will?  This is a "taste" sort of question.  A system that doesn't quite strike your fancy can still make internal sense and be a strong game mechanic.

 

We don't yet know if strength will be the damage stat; it's possible intelligence could be the damage stat.  We're flying in the dark on that.

 

So far, the math elements of the mechanics they have given us have been very well thought out and look like strong mechanics.  I'm apt to give them a little leeway myself, at least until I can look at the stat system in depth and how it interacts with the other systems (talents, skills, etc).

[J. Trudel]

How about :

Power is the damage stat. (could be mental or physical)

Acuity is the accuracy and perception stat.

Tenacity is the resistance stat. 

 

All could also be used for social situations :

Power is when you intimidate or force by leverage, Acuity is when you get tricky or bribe, and Tenacity is when you just get annoying and wont let go

 

You can't screw up a character with those.

Edited September 12, 2013 by J. Trudel

[Jarmo]

 

The last update, about the stronghold, revealed an attribute: Strength.

.....

"The physical attributes are represented as well as the mental attributes..", Josh said on Formspring, but Strength under this system actually becomes both a physical and a mental stat. Because, this is just my guess, wizards cast spells using their mind and not their muscular strength.

 

Do you have a problem internally with having a word "strength" as it applies to both physical strength and mental strength of will?  

 

 

How about :

Power is the damage stat. (could be mental or physical)

 

I agree the system as such, makes game sense and is probably going to work fine.

 

My problem is that such an abstraction means, a wizard that's good at blasting things because of his humongous mental power,

is also going to be awesome at lifting heavy objects and bashing people in their heads with big hammers because of his humongous physical power.

Because they're both represented by the same attribute. Mage also gets the strenght/power bonus when using melee weapons.

 

Likewise, a dumb brute barbarian is also going to be an excellent healer, because of the soothing effect of his bulging muscles.

 

But like I said the last time this cropped up. It's not a huge deal.

Not in the top 10 of things that can make or break the game.

[JFSOCC]

slightly off topic, but I like that there will be a different method to stats. I always found the DnD system broken. Wisdom scores cannot be high with a low intelligence score. I always felt that too few people realise this.

 

Intelligence + mistakes+ reflection= Wisdom. A stupid man will not learn as much from his mistakes as a smart man. It follows that wisdom is easier learned by the intelligent.

Often priests and druids are credited with wisdom in the DnD universe. But I find that following doctrine, no matter how wise, is not wisdom of the character. It's not earned, it's not understood and comprehended.

 

Because you cannot teach wisdom just like you cannot teach what love is. A person will know it when it happens and not before.

It's true that others who are wise can teach, but it is the knowledge, not the comprehension and insight that is taught. I can tell a person it is wise to travel light, but until that person makes the mistake of not travelling light, it will be meaningless for them, even if it is accepted from me that travelling light is wise, it is not wisdom but deference.

 

Since I believe that insight and comprehension are key to wisdom, I've always found it strange to see them as separate statistics.

 

There's a lot more wrong with the DnD stats, Strength is something you can train in a matter of months, perhaps if you wish a rather extreme change it would take a few years and a diet change, Intelligence is something you can stimulate and grow when you are young, but the return on investment becomes much smaller as you age, a stupid person is not likely to become intelligent even after putting in all effort into exercising the brain. Some improvement would happen, but Grognar the Headbutter will not be getting a university degree all of the sudden.

 

Having statistics which ignore this and are perhaps more "gamey", I think, will respect the players enough to role-play their characters without being arbitrarily hampered by stats, while giving us core statistics which are always useful. In other words, let us find that our character is wise from the choices they make, not because we are told so by stat.

[Fearabbit]

Intelligence + mistakes+ reflection= Wisdom. A stupid man will not learn as much from his mistakes as a smart man. It follows that wisdom is easier learned by the intelligent.

Often priests and druids are credited with wisdom in the DnD universe. But I find that following doctrine, no matter how wise, is not wisdom of the character. It's not earned, it's not understood and comprehended.

 

Intelligence in D&D is the ability to use logic and deduction. It also shows how good a character is at studying, learning things by heart, stuff like that.

Wisdom represents the ability to think critically and learn from experience. A mind that looks at a situation from all different perspectives and gets insight from doing this. (So the attribute is more like your "Wisdom Potential".)

 

So the priests and monks are not wise because they have learned doctrines and follow them. The priests and monks are wise because wise people are drawn towards this kind of philosophical life. And ideally, the teachings of their religion have them question their beliefs constantly, so that they actually build up wisdom by constantly arguing with themselves and their brothers and sisters.

Wise people are also the purest examples of what priests should be, just like strong people are the purest example of good warriors. So when you only have one important priest character in your game, chances are you're gonna make him/her high on wisdom.

 

I think the problem lies in the terminology, because intelligence is a very broad term. It's hard to imagine a low-INT person with a high WIS score because we think that low INT means a character is dumb. I'd say a dumb person would be someone who is both low on INT and low on WIS - that's a person who doesn't know the right way to go about something before-hand, makes a mistake and then learns nothing from it.

 

But I agree that D&D doesn't have the best attribute system. It's sorely lacking Willpower as an attribute, if you ask me (especially with all those Will rolls going on in the game anyway).

Edited September 12, 2013 by Fearabbit

[J. Trudel]

 

How about :

Power is the damage stat. (could be mental or physical)

 

I agree the system as such, makes game sense and is probably going to work fine.

 

My problem is that such an abstraction means, a wizard that's good at blasting things because of his humongous mental power,

is also going to be awesome at lifting heavy objects and bashing people in their heads with big hammers because of his humongous physical power.

Because they're both represented by the same attribute. Mage also gets the strenght/power bonus when using melee weapons.

 

Likewise, a dumb brute barbarian is also going to be an excellent healer, because of the soothing effect of his bulging muscles.

 

But like I said the last time this cropped up. It's not a huge deal.

Not in the top 10 of things that can make or break the game.

 

 

This is why I used Power as a word, and not strength, power can be many thing. But mostly : power at what your character is good at. If your character for example is a Barbarian with a huge Power and low Acuity, it does means he is not really clever, but he is strong as hell and he had to work for his strenght so he may know a thing or two about how his body function. The same high power and low acuity for a Wizard would have a different meaning. He would be highly inteligent (mind power), yet maybe a bit lunatic. But wizards aren't known for their strenght so a high power wouldn't means big damage with an axe for example. 

 

Let's take the same Barbarian, a Barbarian isn't known for his healing skills when we compare him to the Cleric. So at Equal Power, the Cleric healing would be far better yet the Barbarian would still be a superior damager with melee weapons. What does it means in role-play ? The cleric is probably more intelligent than the barbarian but he is also weaker. How much each can carry could also be class specific.  

 

To portray this differently, attributes only is not what defines your character. Attributes + Class = The strengths and weakness of that specific character. This would also get adjusted withs skills and talents.

 

Think about it, You are a Big and dumb brute, but you begin to specialize in tracking skills and talent. You will not become a post doctorate phd. But you will not be that dumb when it comes to animal behavior. On the other hand, the same phd would be totally cluless about how to track something, it doesn't means he's stupid but this area of knowledge is poor at best for him. 

Edited September 12, 2013 by J. Trudel

[UpgrayeDD]

Don't get me started how ridiculous DnD statistics were. 2nd edition, The more stronger your guy gets apparently more accurate with using his weapon. So someone completely retarded can be a master swordsman. And I don't know about you guys I find dnd more  unrealistic and ridiculous then a anime like dragon ball z. Halfings slaying a dragon lol, never...

 

really it's retarded that strength can affect accuracy? the stronger you are the faster you can swing. The faster you swing the more likely you are to hit your opponent and to smash through their defense. While there is something to be said about the importance of hand eye coordination in combat but that doesn't mean a stronger(bigger) opponent holds a lot of advantage in combat. Why do you think most professional fighting organizations place so much importance into dividing people into weight class?

[Jarmo]

  The same high power and low acuity for a Wizard would have a different meaning. He would be highly inteligent (mind power), yet maybe a bit lunatic. But wizards aren't known for their strenght so a high power wouldn't means big damage with an axe for example.  

 

Only that it would & wll.

PE wizards can use axes and if they have high power or strenght or whatever it's called, they'll do high damage with the axe.

[Valorian]

 

 

Do you have a problem internally with having a word "strength" as it applies to both physical strength and mental strength of will?  This is a "taste" sort of question.  A system that doesn't quite strike your fancy can still make internal sense and be a strong game mechanic.

 

 

I want a distinction between physical and mental attributes. Therefore, I find attributes that mix and match these two completely different aspects of a character problematic.

 

This is not a taste sort of thing.

A taste (and style) sort of thing is, for example, my preference for the usage of smaller numbers in RPGs. Instead of swords dealing 50 damage and characters having 400 HP I prefer 5 damage vs. 40 HP. I associate it with the IE games and d&d, in contrast with the unnecessary number bloat that I associate with other types of games. Apart from it being more practical for the player to calculate things on the fly, of course.

 

My problem is that such an abstraction means, a wizard that's good at blasting things because of his humongous mental power,

is also going to be awesome at lifting heavy objects and bashing people in their heads with big hammers because of his humongous physical power.

Because they're both represented by the same attribute. Mage also gets the strenght/power bonus when using melee weapons.

 

Likewise, a dumb brute barbarian is also going to be an excellent healer, because of the soothing effect of his bulging muscles.

 

 

A fine example.