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

[Valorian]

 

In the end, I want to be able to create a wizard who deals massive damage with spells and is exceptionally accurate with them, but when you give him a mace he can barely lift it, let alone hit anyone.

 

Simple, right?

To the extent that I'd love to make a wizard who deals massive damage with spells and is exceptionally accurate with them but can't speak eight languages and is bad at math, yes. Simple.

 

 

Because the wizard speaking/not speaking eight languages and being good/bad at maths is an integral part of combat mechanics and is overall very relevant to gameplay, yes?

[Lephys]

Hey guys, didn't you read my post about how a single attribute that governs damage bonus can make sense ? 

 

Let's say you are a Wizard, and you invest many points in the damage attribute. It may only means you are getting more intelligent and focused. How can it help you doing more damage with a melee weapon ? Simple, you know how to hit the vital structures of your target. However, this does not means that you will be able to equal the damage output of the Warrior who invested as much points in the damage attribute with the same melee weapon. 

 

As the P:E devs said : You will not be able to beat a class at his own strenght, a warrior will do more damage with a sword than a wizard. Even if you both have the same damage attribute. However, the Wizard will do more damage with spells than the Warrior. 

 

Simple really. The damage attribute may have you increasing damage output for everything, it does not means everything does equal damage output for all classes.

One problem still remains: Physical strength is tied to Warriorness, and mental strength is tied to Wizardness, even though they govern things beyond just combat damage and melee weapon/spell prowess. In other words, you still can't make a physically bulky, naturally strong/muscley Wizard who's much more apt at magic than at swordplay, but who can carry a body around easily, even when he's out of spell-juice for the day. Or, a Warrior who's relatively small and lithe and "weak" (again, relatively), only half the sheer size and raw might of the Wizard, but who's much more apt with melee weaponry and fighting techniques than at any kind of mental magic, despite having very strong mental capacities. Because Warrior translates your "Power" into physical strength (or both physical and mental strength... even worse), and Wizard translates it into mental (or, again... both...).

 

There's a problem/something lacking in both combat mechanics AND non-combat mechanics.

 

To the extent that I'd love to make a wizard who deals massive damage with spells and is exceptionally accurate with them but can't speak eight languages and is bad at math, yes. Simple.

That would actually be pretty awesome. If I could make a character who was abandoned as a child, and who grew up on his own, never learning to read or write, surviving on raw magical ability alone. It wouldn't be as refined as "learned" Wizard's abilities, but it would be no less potent and applicable to an array of situations and needs.

 

In the Wheel of Time series of books (by Robert Jordan), all the Aes Sedai (basically magic users) pretty much train in the same city, with their collected libraries and knowledge and prowess, and they all train the same way. There's variation amongst their abilities, but it's all checked off this catalogued list of things they've discovered and accumulated over the ages. They basically start thinking that they know almost as much as anyone can possibly know about the One Power, and then people who've sort of developed their abilities the hard way without any "proper" training come along and start figuring out these new techniques and methods of using it. The Aes Sedai are all taken aback by this, because the ways in which these techniques were discovered lay outside their "proper training" catalogued list of possibilities.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Lephys

[Tamerlane]

Well...

 

Because the wizard speaking/not speaking eight languages and being good/bad at maths is an integral part of combat mechanics and is overall very relevant to gameplay, yes?

 

 

Probably not. Unless they implement the Calculator class from Final Fantasy Tactics, or copy the "my powers are language-based and all my enemies are francophones" bit from Preacher, or something along those lines.

 

But the point is that unless you have a stat that says, "This is for magic power only and absolutely nothing else," it will in some way affect your dude in a manner that may not fit your core character concept. A smarmy, obnoxious, yet undeniably talented bard, for example.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Tamerlane

[Jarmo]

Hey guys, didn't you read my post about how a single attribute that governs damage bonus can make sense ? 

 

Let's say you are a Wizard, and you invest many points in the damage attribute. It may only means you are getting more intelligent and focused. How can it help you doing more damage with a melee weapon ? Simple, you know how to hit the vital structures of your target. 

 

 

Simple really. The damage attribute may have you increasing damage output for everything, it does not means everything does equal damage output for all classes. 

 

 

The system makes game sense and is intuitive, your explanation does not.

 

Wizard is no doubt intelligent and focused, in casting spells and reading books. A fighter spends his time being focused on hitting enemies with weapons.

Now which one is more likely to know what parts of the enemy are good parts to perforate with sword strokes?

 

That doesn't go anywhere towards explaining why, when both share a high attribute, the attribute means something completely different for the two classes,

especially when the game itself would shows both classes getting the very same benefit by the shared attribute.

 

And yes. A high STR fighter in PE is going to be better at melee than a high STR wizard.

But that's just the same as in D&D, a high STR fighter is better than a high STR wizard, because of fighter feats and better attack progression.

 

 

---

 

BTW. I'd love to see a system where magic power is detached from wisdom or whatever magic skill.

Meaning you could have a simple stupid mage who can't cast high complexity spells, but can cast the simple spells with tremendous power.

Or a highly trained wizard with maybe low magic aptitude, who could still compensate by weaving more elaborate magics.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Jarmo

[Valorian]

 

But the point is that unless you have a stat that says, "This is for magic power only and absolutely nothing else," it will in some way affect your dude in a manner that may not fit your core character concept. A smarmy, obnoxious, yet undeniably talented bard, for example.

 

Enough with irrelevant non sequiturs. The problem is not that a stat affects a character in a way "that may not fit my core character concept", but that it affects the character in a nonsensical way.

 

Your analogy (maths, languages) wasn't good. The ability to learn languages and mathematics is a mental ability and therefore it is not such a stretch of imagination that it's tied to intelligence.

While yes, intelligent fighters should clearly have an advantage over dumb fighters, that still doesn't mean that strength should augment damage from spells. 

 

Charisma is important for bards, obviously.

[Tamerlane]

 

Your analogy (maths, languages) wasn't good. The ability to learn languages and mathematics is a mental ability and therefore it is not such a stretch of imagination that it's tied to intelligence.

This is not something I was disputing.

 

What I dispute is the need to segregate stats into categories of "take this if you want to be a magic dude" and "take this if you want to be a fighting man dude".

[Lephys]

What I dispute is the need to segregate stats into categories of "take this if you want to be a magic dude" and "take this if you want to be a fighting man dude".

You're right. However, there's still value to be had in individually representing two different capabilities (namely, the capability to physically manipulate objects and physics with our biological muscles, and the ability to meta-physically/magically manipulate both realistic physics and any additional fictional/magical "physics"/energies).

 

The principle here is exactly the same as "I shouldn't automatically be super smart and learned just because I'm capable of manipulating magical energy." Why can't you have a dumb Wizard who simply develops his magical aptitude differently than a smart Wizard? And a dumb Warrior who fights differently than a smart one? Why does smartness need to be married to the sheer ability to wield energy, and strength be married to the sheer ability to functionally utilize weapons (beyond the minimum strength for being able to lift/swing them)? It shouldn't, really.

 

While I don't know exactly how they're logistically structuring things (and would love to know), I have a feeling, based on what they've said thus far about it, that this is the idea they're going for. They want stats to accurately depict a facet of your character, and not arbitrarily be married to some other facet.

[J. Trudel]

 

Hey guys, didn't you read my post about how a single attribute that governs damage bonus can make sense ? 

 

Let's say you are a Wizard, and you invest many points in the damage attribute. It may only means you are getting more intelligent and focused. How can it help you doing more damage with a melee weapon ? Simple, you know how to hit the vital structures of your target. 

 

 

Simple really. The damage attribute may have you increasing damage output for everything, it does not means everything does equal damage output for all classes. 

 

 

The system makes game sense and is intuitive, your explanation does not.

 

Wizard is no doubt intelligent and focused, in casting spells and reading books. A fighter spends his time being focused on hitting enemies with weapons.

Now which one is more likely to know what parts of the enemy are good parts to perforate with sword strokes?

 

That doesn't go anywhere towards explaining why, when both share a high attribute, the attribute means something completely different for the two classes,

especially when the game itself would shows both classes getting the very same benefit by the shared attribute.

 

And yes. A high STR fighter in PE is going to be better at melee than a high STR wizard.

But that's just the same as in D&D, a high STR fighter is better than a high STR wizard, because of fighter feats and better attack progression.

 

 

---

 

BTW. I'd love to see a system where magic power is detached from wisdom or whatever magic skill.

Meaning you could have a simple stupid mage who can't cast high complexity spells, but can cast the simple spells with tremendous power.

Or a highly trained wizard with maybe low magic aptitude, who could still compensate by weaving more elaborate magics.

 

 

I didn't say that the fighter wasn't also good at that.

 

Because attributes is not an end all thing. Skills are equally important, why wouldn't strength be part attribute, part skill ? Your class determine somewhat your skill in your ''Strength''. Why it has different meanings ? Because the classes doesn't focus on the same skills. If you find it weird that strength is also a skill, go ask some of the best sports coaches on the planet. You could find some quite interesting answer. 

 

Lets take the Mage :

Damage attribute is (lets call it power) 5 and knowledge is 5 giving him what he needs to cast powerful magic.

In my interpretation of power, I represent this stat as the resolve and neurological efficiency.

How would you interpret that ?  

 

Now lets take the warrior :

Power is 5 and athletics is 5. 

Wouldn't you say that the same attribute can't have different applications ?

 

Neurological efficiency + Resolve + Knowledge = Magical power

Neurological efficiency + Resolve + Athletics = Strength

 

Doesn't mean either that the mage doesn't also have some skills in athletics, which would also give him a strength, it's just that this strength will probably not be as good as the fighter strength.

 

@Lephys : 

 

It doesn't make Strength an exclusivity to the warriors, you may invest in athletics (the skill part of strength) also if you are a mage 

Edited September 14, 2013 by J. Trudel

[Lephys]

@ J. Trudel:

 

The problem being brought up here is with "strength" and "magical strength" being the same thing. So, in your example, unless Athletics affects Magical power, it's not really the same thing. Granted, there's still the issue of "Why don't I just boost the crap out of my resolve and Neurological efficiency?" Because, that's never bad under any circumstances. But, that can be handled, I'm sure. The main problem I was trying to address, from having "Strength" as the potency-of-any-kind stat, and that's it, is that there would then be something missing from the system. There would be an arbitrary disconnect between two inherent, non-skill things. That kind of even pops up with "resolve" in your example. If resolve affects Strength and Magical strength, why doesn't it also affect Fortitude, and Willpower, and Charisma, etc? Even if you just have an individual Strength stat for physical power, you can work in the abstract notion of resolve's intangible effects on that, without having a separate stat that affects multiple things at once on every character. You can have a small, 110lb, lithe character with a high Strength. This would mean that they have a very high "resolve"/other intangible contributions to their resulting Strength.

 

Your ability to do things as a direct result of the physical operation of your muscles is a separate thing from your ability to do things not-as-a-direct-result-of-the-physical-operation-of-your-muscles. If this weren't the case, then you could animance yourself into a giant Voltron robot, and the magical potency of your soul would suddenly be boosted, based on the physical strength of your giant Voltron Robot's hydraulic 7-foot-wide arms.

 

I'm all for Strength and Magic working in tandem, at times. I think you should be able to magically cast a weaker spell that simply forms a little dagger-like ice spike out of the moisture in the air (just magical manipulation of physical matter, really), then throw that little ice dagger with your physical strength as a factor. That would be awesome. Instant reason for Strength to matter for magical folk. You put your magical study focus into manipulating your environment into physical tools that can be used by you, physically, rather than magical hurling purely magical energies at your opponents all day with not a care in the world for your physical strength. That would be a cool option for a sort of sub-group of possible Wizard Spells. But it doesn't make any sense for your physical strength to somehow allow you to non-physically fashion humidity into frozen daggers, since that doesn't involve the application of physical force in any way.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Lephys

[Sezneg]

 

 

But the point is that unless you have a stat that says, "This is for magic power only and absolutely nothing else," it will in some way affect your dude in a manner that may not fit your core character concept. A smarmy, obnoxious, yet undeniably talented bard, for example.

 

Enough with irrelevant non sequiturs. The problem is not that a stat affects a character in a way "that may not fit my core character concept", but that it affects the character in a nonsensical way.

 

Your analogy (maths, languages) wasn't good. The ability to learn languages and mathematics is a mental ability and therefore it is not such a stretch of imagination that it's tied to intelligence.

While yes, intelligent fighters should clearly have an advantage over dumb fighters, that still doesn't mean that strength should augment damage from spells. 

 

Charisma is important for bards, obviously.

 

 

I have no issue in imagining the magic in PE as a very visceral and physically demanding act.  I also have no problem imagining an attribute that would govern a characters ability to apply physical force as well as force into their magic.  As long as this is presented in a fashion that is internally consistent, it is no more nonsensical to me than the notion of having soul magic in the first place.

[Valorian]

 

What I dispute is the need to segregate stats into categories of "take this if you want to be a magic dude" and "take this if you want to be a fighting man dude".

 

 

But on the other hand you prefer "take this if you want to be a magic dude" and "take that if you want to be a scholar dude". How so?

 

 

 

I have no issue in imagining the magic in PE as a very visceral and physically demanding act.  I also have no problem imagining an attribute that would govern a characters ability to apply physical force as well as force into their magic.  As long as this is presented in a fashion that is internally consistent, it is no more nonsensical to me than the notion of having soul magic in the first place.

 

 

People can imagine all sorts of things and make it seem sensible in their heads, especially if it's endorsed by a developer. That's not the point.

 

Wizards are wizards for a reason, fighters are fighters for a reason. Attributes are the skeleton of a character's concept - is he smart, is he strong, is he charismatic..  Why do completely different types of characters, for ridiculously different actions, draw their damage potential from the same attribute? It makes the system banal.

 

"Because less dump stats"? No.

 

If attributes offer universal bonuses for every class, players will soon figure out the best attributes. You'll have a situation with universal dump stats, which is way worse than situational dump stats.

 

They could make a nice attribute system without the universal attribute mumbo-jumbo and avoid dump stats. The answer is: Attribute prerequisites, when it makes sense.

 

Wizard? You want to wear this horribly heavy armor and move around at normal speed and have the standard action speed penalty applied (instead of an increased one)? You need some strength for that.

 

Warrior? You want to pick this powerful ability? You need some intelligence for that.

[Tamerlane]

 

If attributes offer universal bonuses for every class, players will soon figure out the best attributes. You'll have a situation with universal dump stats, which is way worse than situational dump stats.

 

That is... incredibly defeatist.

[JFSOCC]

possibility

 

Soul Strength: affects ability intensity (duration, power etc) affects some skills

Soul Affinity: affects ability costs, recharge times. affects some skills

Fitness: affects health and stamina levels, chance to hit. affects some skills (strength, dexterity, constitution all rolled into one)

Intellect: high intellect adds a % modifier to all skills and a smaller % modifier to all abilities. Offers additional dialogue options. (intelligence, wisdom, charisma all rolled into one)

 

each attribute would unlock special abilities if you are highly invested in them.

[Prometheus]

 

They could make a nice attribute system without the universal attribute mumbo-jumbo and avoid dump stats. The answer is: Attribute prerequisites, when it makes sense.

They could try. But I don't understand the advantages. Most of the time the prerequisites would make no sense, as zen archery in nwn2. But I see a lot of disadvantages:

- The system is complex for the player, because the player must know all the prerequisites at the beginning to make a specific build.

- The system is diificult to balance.

- It's difficult to avoid must have stats, e.g. I can get new abillities with high int but I still need high strength for the standard attacks.

- They need to make a lot of talents for each build to make the different builds viable.

- You will have a lot of min/maxing e.g. if you have int 16 you can take a good abillity but there is no reason to raise int over 16

[Fearabbit]

 

If attributes offer universal bonuses for every class, players will soon figure out the best attributes. You'll have a situation with universal dump stats, which is way worse than situational dump stats.

That is... incredibly defeatist.

 

It's a valid point, though. We don't know yet how attributes will work with classes, but there is the possibility that a certain distribution of attribute points will be the optimum for each class. And that would be boring.

But for me the bigger problem is still that the majority of RPG players will want the ability to create the typical characters they've created in other games. The weak but powerful wizard, the strong but dumb warrior and so on. And if they can't do that, they'll be pissed. I'm all for trying out a new attribute system, but it has to allow me to roleplay.

 

But nobody's saying that this will be the downfall of Project Eternity or anything like that. We just have questions, and I believe that these questions are very important.

1. Will I be able to create a Wizard who is weak but good at spellcasting?

2. Will I be able to do the opposite, namely a Wizard who is very strong and actually worse at spellcasting?

3. Or will there be a fixed difference between fighting prowess between the classes? If we leave talents/feats out of the equation, will Fighters be better at fighting than Wizards who have the same attribute and skill points because they're fighters?

4. Will my class change what the attributes do in some way? Does it turn the "Strength" attribute of the Fighter into a "Magical aptitude" attribute for the Wizard (both of them simply named "Power", but with different functions)?

5. If I had a good distribution of attribute points in my first playthrough as a Fighter, will that be still a good choice for my next playthrough as a Wizard? Will I have to change anything at all in order to play my new role effectively?

 

This whole discussion would be over if a developer said "Yes, yes, no, no, no" to these. Personally I'd love a new attribute system, I just want to be sure that I can use it for roleplaying purposes in the same way that I could before.

[Sezneg]

 

 

What I dispute is the need to segregate stats into categories of "take this if you want to be a magic dude" and "take this if you want to be a fighting man dude".

 

 

But on the other hand you prefer "take this if you want to be a magic dude" and "take that if you want to be a scholar dude". How so?

 

 

 

I have no issue in imagining the magic in PE as a very visceral and physically demanding act.  I also have no problem imagining an attribute that would govern a characters ability to apply physical force as well as force into their magic.  As long as this is presented in a fashion that is internally consistent, it is no more nonsensical to me than the notion of having soul magic in the first place.

 

 

People can imagine all sorts of things and make it seem sensible in their heads, especially if it's endorsed by a developer. That's not the point.

 

Wizards are wizards for a reason, fighters are fighters for a reason. Attributes are the skeleton of a character's concept - is he smart, is he strong, is he charismatic..  Why do completely different types of characters, for ridiculously different actions, draw their damage potential from the same attribute? It makes the system banal.

 

"Because less dump stats"? No.

 

If attributes offer universal bonuses for every class, players will soon figure out the best attributes. You'll have a situation with universal dump stats, which is way worse than situational dump stats.

 

They could make a nice attribute system without the universal attribute mumbo-jumbo and avoid dump stats. The answer is: Attribute prerequisites, when it makes sense.

 

Wizard? You want to wear this horribly heavy armor and move around at normal speed and have the standard action speed penalty applied (instead of an increased one)? You need some strength for that.

 

Warrior? You want to pick this powerful ability? You need some intelligence for that.

 

 

 

And in PE... Wizards are indeed wizards for a reason.  Fighters are also fighters for a reason.

 

There is a LOT more to "damage potential" than measuring a single stat that "universally scales damage"; accuracy and crit range are important too.  Not to mention talents, and who's to say at this point what sort of stat gating we will see on those (we've already been given an example of a race/culture gating).  I do like that you used the word "potential" however, as there is more to being good at spells and melee than having a decent score in a statistic that measures the effort with which you swing your weapon or project your magic.  There's training (represented in the class attack values which can be thought of as similar to BAB tables in dnd), there are specific techniques and abilities you have learned (represented by your abilities and talents) as well.  Having a decent score in this stat (we're not sure if it's strength, but that's as good a guess as any right now), merely denotes your potential... that if you had the proper training to actually use a weapon or cast a spell you have the potential to do a bit more damage.  Merely having this stat does not suddenly make you "good" at something you have not trained or learned (as compared to strength making you hit harder *and* more often in other systems).

 

A weak yet powerful wizard will exist (sawyer has said as much).  But so will an extremely fit, but not overly intelligent wizard.  And they will both play differently within the game, while not being garbage choices.  This is a good thing.

 

There is nothing any more nonsensical about this than the notion of soul magic, or rangers and their pets sharing a health pool, or any number of other fantasy elements in this setting so long as it is all internally consistent and well presented.

 

What you're describing as an alternative... is 3.5e dnd with Prcs, which I'm sorry never solved any of the problems with that stat system within a cRPG setting.  You keep mentioning your frail wizard.  No doubt he was weak and frail with a 14-16 constitution for all the sense that makes.  With a feat in "toughness" to boot, because you know "weak/frail" but powerful, am I right?

 

*edit*

 

Something else to keep in mind is that attributes do not seem to increase via leveling from anything I have read at this point.  This means that by end game they will play a much smaller role than in 3.0/3.5 DnD, where they serve to widen the power gulf over the course of leveling even further.  This will increase the importance of being able to understand the stats and their effects right out of the gate, and if there are any talent gates from stats that needs to be viewable from within the character creation menu.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Sezneg

[Valorian]

 

 

They could make a nice attribute system without the universal attribute mumbo-jumbo and avoid dump stats. The answer is: Attribute prerequisites, when it makes sense.

They could try. But I don't understand the advantages. Most of the time the prerequisites would make no sense, as zen archery in nwn2. But I see a lot of disadvantages:

- The system is complex for the player, because the player must know all the prerequisites at the beginning to make a specific build.

- The system is diificult to balance.

- It's difficult to avoid must have stats, e.g. I can get new abillities with high int but I still need high strength for the standard attacks.

- They need to make a lot of talents for each build to make the different builds viable.

- You will have a lot of min/maxing e.g. if you have int 16 you can take a good abillity but there is no reason to raise int over 16

 

 

The prerequisites will all make sense if they're included in a way that makes sense. Zen archery in NWN2 in no way makes attribute prerequisites as a concept senseless. Also, there will be prerequisities for talents in PE, such as level or background.

You don't understand the advantages because: a) your premises are wrong and b) you support the current atrocibutes.

 

- A complex system is preferable. Ignorant players who refuse to read ability descriptions shouldn't be rewarded.

- Complex systems are harder to balance than vapid and banal ones.

- Yes, you'd need both. You need to decide what attributes are the best for the role you prefer. If you want to smash things you're not going to focus on charisma. PE will function similarly, but will (hopefully not!) use atrocibutes and have universal dump stats.

- They don't.

- That's not min-maxing.

 

 

A weak yet powerful wizard will exist

 

A wizard who wants to do any damage with his spells will have to invest in the damage stat -- strength.

Therefore, this negates the existence of physically weak yet powerful damage-dealing wizards.

[Sezneg]

 

 

A weak yet powerful wizard will exist

 

A wizard who wants to do any damage with his spells will have to invest in the damage stat -- strength.

Therefore, this negates the existence of physically weak yet powerful damage-dealing wizards.

 

 

This is not true; as accuracy and crit range are equally important to damage potential, and that doesn't even begin to look at other potential scaling points (casting speed?  DT reduction?)  that all can have a huge impact on damage output (and which would also allow for some focused strategic choices in spell choice in making a build).  There is a lot more to DPS than merely adding to the tooltip damage amount (as again, spells have an accuracy check, can crit, and must go through a damage threshold); and allowing for scaling in many different areas can allow for some very interesting build choices.  Frankly, you are being very closed-minded and seem to not be looking at this through any other lens but your DnD experience.

 

Also; at this point calling strength "the damage stat" is speculation at best.  All we know about it is that it's called strength, and that it can be increased by purchasing an upgrade to our stronghold (the training yard).  Other than that, we know nothing about its function, nor will we until Sawyer pops in and enlightens us, or posts an update on Tuesday explaining the stat system.  For all we know, Strength was merely an internal name in use at the time Tim was working on the stronghold system, and may not even be the current name for this stat!

[Lephys]

There can be pre-requisites for abilities without simply toggling the door that leads to advancement itself.

 

Maybe you need more than 15 Power to get some new explosive variant of a spell, as a Wizard. Or, if you have 15 Accuracy (example stat names), you STILL get a new spell, but you only meet the prerequisite for the "this hits 5 targets with 5 projectiles and has a high chance to crit" spell of the same type, instead of the uber-power-burst spell.

 

In other words, if you put X points into SOME attribute, then you're simply going to close the door on specifically certain-attribute-based prerequisites. But, nothing says that any given attribute must be THE prerequisite for class advancement, itself (think INT in DnD, for Wizards).

 

Without multi-classing, why do you need to make sure a Wizard has a certain amount of some specific stat for him to advance as a Wizard? A Warrior with a rating of 1 million in that stat is never, ever going to gain ANY Wizard abilities.

 

Nothing says they can't make a system in which, even if you roll a character with all 1's for stat values, he won't still gain abilities every time he's supposed to and progress to the end of his class. He'll just have horrible sheer damage potential for all the abilties, as well as accuracy, defense/resistance, social skills, physical capability, etc.

 

In other words, the stats only AFFECT your abilities. They don't have to ENABLE them (although they'll surely enable some, like I said, but it'll be more of above-and-beyond things, like talents, and ability variants/specializations, etc.).

 

Both a grasshopper AND a human can jump. Yet, if a child human has a Strength of 4, what do you think a grasshopper's Strength would be on the same scale?

 

A Wizard with Power 1 and Speed 18 will toss really weak spells really, really quickly (or even fire rapid-fire bursts of pathetically weak spells). And, sure, if you make a Warrior with 1 Strength, maybe he'll be restricted to lighter weapons. Doesn't mean he'll be unable to use weapons. Obviously, there could be minimums above "1," specifically. The point is that you don't have to use the entire scale as prerequisites for advancement. "Oh, you've got 10 Strength instead of 18? Well, you're only going to get 55% of the stuff a Warrior can get, then, u_u..."

[Sezneg]

Plausible World Fiction Explanation for Using Physical Damage Scaling Stat for Spells:

 

• Soul Explanation: Damaging spells we would compare to "evocation" spells in DnD draw their power from the soul of the caster.  Souls are complex things; they are the essence of who and what we are, and the measurable dimensions of the soul mirror that of the host vessel.  Does the soul determine the physical body?  Does the physical body determine the soul?  This debate is at the very center of current research into soul magic, and many of the greatest wizards and ciphers disagree as to which part of the whole determines the other.  Whatever the case may be, what is known is that those strong of body posses potent souls, and that spells harnessing their soul can overwhelm their targets due to this potency.  In a similar fashion, spells from souls of intelligent wizards can be devastating as they are much more easily able to overcome the psych of their target, while souls from those with iron willpower can bypass the physical protection of their target's armor, allowing their spells to damage foes even when their armor and shield would normally provide strong protection from the magical attack.
• Visceral Casting: Harnessing soul magic is a much more physical act in the world of Project Eternity, as we are not merely tapping into an all encompassing energy, nor are we merely channeling gifts from a divine or fiendish patron.  We are fueling magical attacks, which physically manifest in our world with the energy of our own soul.  In many ways, this can be compared to "ki" attacks given to martial artists classes in other RPG settings.  When we compare the Somatic (that is body movement) component of spell casting in PE to say, DnD there can be a world of difference.  DnD rulesets describe the somatic component as only requiring a single free hand to make a few gestures.  In PE, we may think of the somatic component as much more physically demanding, with full and forceful movements with much more required effort.  It is not at all far fetched to have a physical stat that measures both the effort and force used in a weapon swing, as well the effort and force of projecting your soul energy.

 

It's important to keep in mind that there are many factors that go into damage.  Scaling tooltip damage is not the only scaling going on, as your spells will have accuracy checks, crit ranges, and must go through varying amounts of Damage Threshold.  Compared to DnD's simple system of Caster level/DC and the poorly implemented Spell Resistance, PE is already offering many more ways to define and build your caster.  There will likely be synergies; some spells may scale better with crit chance due to having a higher crit modifier or base crit range (or both!).  This is before we even get into any scaling which influences cast times, or number of casts allowed per day.

 

Finally, let us look at the notion that an ingelligent but weak wizard will not be able to be "powerful" due to lack of damage (ignoring for now that I have already provided the other ways such a wizard's damage may be increased).  When was a DnD wizard's power ever merely derived from their damage output?  Even in cRPG; rest limits/feasibility often makes damage wizards less optimal than sorcerers.  Wizard is a control class first, and a dps class second (if we're talking about DnD).

[J. Trudel]

@ J. Trudel:

 

The problem being brought up here is with "strength" and "magical strength" being the same thing. So, in your example, unless Athletics affects Magical power, it's not really the same thing. Granted, there's still the issue of "Why don't I just boost the crap out of my resolve and Neurological efficiency?" Because, that's never bad under any circumstances. But, that can be handled, I'm sure. The main problem I was trying to address, from having "Strength" as the potency-of-any-kind stat, and that's it, is that there would then be something missing from the system. There would be an arbitrary disconnect between two inherent, non-skill things. That kind of even pops up with "resolve" in your example. If resolve affects Strength and Magical strength, why doesn't it also affect Fortitude, and Willpower, and Charisma, etc? Even if you just have an individual Strength stat for physical power, you can work in the abstract notion of resolve's intangible effects on that, without having a separate stat that affects multiple things at once on every character. You can have a small, 110lb, lithe character with a high Strength. This would mean that they have a very high "resolve"/other intangible contributions to their resulting Strength.

 

Your ability to do things as a direct result of the physical operation of your muscles is a separate thing from your ability to do things not-as-a-direct-result-of-the-physical-operation-of-your-muscles. If this weren't the case, then you could animance yourself into a giant Voltron robot, and the magical potency of your soul would suddenly be boosted, based on the physical strength of your giant Voltron Robot's hydraulic 7-foot-wide arms.

 

I'm all for Strength and Magic working in tandem, at times. I think you should be able to magically cast a weaker spell that simply forms a little dagger-like ice spike out of the moisture in the air (just magical manipulation of physical matter, really), then throw that little ice dagger with your physical strength as a factor. That would be awesome. Instant reason for Strength to matter for magical folk. You put your magical study focus into manipulating your environment into physical tools that can be used by you, physically, rather than magical hurling purely magical energies at your opponents all day with not a care in the world for your physical strength. That would be a cool option for a sort of sub-group of possible Wizard Spells. But it doesn't make any sense for your physical strength to somehow allow you to non-physically fashion humidity into frozen daggers, since that doesn't involve the application of physical force in any way.

 

I think you misunderstand me because you think about strength, while I think about a ''damage'' attribute. Didn't say the damage attribute should be strength. In fact we aren't sure yet what the damage attribute is. I do agree that it's silly to have physical strength and magical strength as the same attribute. This is why my proposition do something else. Yet it does as the Devs want : to have a single attribute that govern damage.

 

Overall damage attribute : No fitting name yet, but it has to affect both Magical power and Physical strength. 

Magical power as a skill : Higher for wizard

Strength as a skill : Higher for fighter

 

You are too eager to prove me wrong when in fact it IS possible to create such a system. Where common pitfall are avoided, yet having an in depth variation to make a physically strong wizard or an intelligent fighter possible.  

Edited September 15, 2013 by J. Trudel

[Valorian]

 

 

 

A weak yet powerful wizard will exist

 

A wizard who wants to do any damage with his spells will have to invest in the damage stat -- strength.

Therefore, this negates the existence of physically weak yet powerful damage-dealing wizards.

 

 

This is not true; as accuracy and crit range are equally important to damage potential, and that doesn't even begin to look at other potential scaling points (casting speed?  DT reduction?)  that all can have a huge impact on damage output 

 

Also; at this point calling strength "the damage stat" is speculation at best.  

 

You first need to understand that accuracy won't do a thing if your base damage is horrible.

DT, right, DT. Especially in a game with a flat damage reduction system, raw damage is essential.

 

So a wizard who focuses on dealing damage will have to invest... *drum roll*.. in the damage stat! In strength.

 

 

Oh yes, disregarding all the logical implications of the word, all the games that use strength as a damage modifier, defying the unsettling bounds of reason I'm sure strength could be used in PE as a measure of charisma or agility.

[Sezneg]

 

 

 

 

A weak yet powerful wizard will exist

 

A wizard who wants to do any damage with his spells will have to invest in the damage stat -- strength.

Therefore, this negates the existence of physically weak yet powerful damage-dealing wizards.

 

 

This is not true; as accuracy and crit range are equally important to damage potential, and that doesn't even begin to look at other potential scaling points (casting speed?  DT reduction?)  that all can have a huge impact on damage output 

 

Also; at this point calling strength "the damage stat" is speculation at best.  

 

You first need to understand that accuracy won't do a thing if your base damage is horrible.

DT, right, DT. Especially in a game with a flat damage reduction system, raw damage is essential.

 

So a wizard who focuses on dealing damage will have to invest... *drum roll*.. in the damage stat! In strength.

 

 

Oh yes, disregarding all the logical implications of the word, all the games that use strength as a damage modifier, defying the unsettling bounds of reason I'm sure strength could be used in PE as a measure of charisma or agility.

 

 

You can wave your hands, but you're still wrong on this.  There are many ways to scale measurable damage.  Direct tooltip scaling is only one.

 

Even in situations where your natural attack progression matches the defense of the target you're slinging your spell at, you are going to lose 50% of your up front damage on half of your attacks.  This doesn't even get into situations where you are targeting a high defense.  This makes accuracy a very powerful damage scaling statistic, especially on more difficult to hit targets.  The trade-off here is that on easier to hit targets, direct damage scaling is better, but accuracy is superior against normal to high defense targets.

 

Then there's crit mechanics, which increase your tooltip damage by 1.5x.  Anyone who's done any math in 3.0/3.5 DnD knows that you can build serious damage builds around crit mechanics, including many builds that use low base damage weapons and don't stack strength.  Ignoring critical hits as a damage scaling mechanic denotes a willful ignorance of the systems you are comparing PE to in the first place.

 

Finally there's DT.  Overcoming DT does favor up front damage.  But we also know that there are other methods of defeating it.  I merely suggest that we may have a stat that influences our ability to overcome DT.  Against high DT targets, such a statistic and the stat that governs it will be superior to tooltip damage scaling.

 

This is merely math, and logic.  You may not like this style, but so long as this is an internally consistent system that is built into the fiction and mechanics, there is nothing inherently wrong with such a system.  You can mask your personal distaste for this in logic, but not when you're choosing to ignore the math they've already given us that would tend to cut against your argument. 

[Sabotin]

While having a single stat for damage does sound very strange and concerning, we still have no idea how base stats work. We don't know whether base stats have the same effect for every class even, or whether the bonuses are multipliers or additions or some arcane integral function or just requirements...

[Valorian]

You can wave your hands, but you're still wrong on this.  There are many ways to scale measurable damage.  Direct tooltip scaling is only one.

 

Even in situations where your natural attack progression matches the defense of the target you're slinging your spell at, you are going to lose 50% of your up front damage on half of your attacks.  This doesn't even get into situations where you are targeting a high defense.  This makes accuracy a very powerful damage scaling statistic, especially on more difficult to hit targets.  The trade-off here is that on easier to hit targets, direct damage scaling is better, but accuracy is superior against normal to high defense targets.

 

Then there's crit mechanics, which increase your tooltip damage by 1.5x.  Anyone who's done any math in 3.0/3.5 DnD knows that you can build serious damage builds around crit mechanics, including many builds that use low base damage weapons and don't stack strength.  Ignoring critical hits as a damage scaling mechanic denotes a willful ignorance of the systems you are comparing PE to in the first place.

 

Finally there's DT.  Overcoming DT does favor up front damage.  But we also know that there are other methods of defeating it.  I merely suggest that we may have a stat that influences our ability to overcome DT.  Against high DT targets, such a statistic and the stat that governs it will be superior to tooltip damage scaling.

 

This is merely math, and logic.  You may not like this style, but so long as this is an internally consistent system that is built into the fiction and mechanics, there is nothing inherently wrong with such a system.  You can mask your personal distaste for this in logic, but not when you're choosing to ignore the math they've already given us that would tend to cut against your argument. 

 

 

 

Sorry, this is another critical failure on your logic roll.

 

 

Let's do this step by step:

 

 

1) The desire to build a powerful damage dealing wizard, yet physically weak.

 

2) To be able to deal solid damage with spells, it's ok to invest in the accuracy attribure, but more importantly, it's better to invest points in the damage attribure (strength).

 

3) Therefore, your wizard will have to be STRONK, physically.

 

4) Back to point "2". Why "more importantly"?

 

5) Because PE's mechanics, DT + grazes, favor high damage over high accuracy.

 

6) With a miniumum damage of 50, you deal 25 damage on a graze. There's only a 5% chance to outright miss, if acc. and def. are equal. Of course, if your accuracy is outclassed by the target's defense, you're going to miss more often. But you still need damage, too.

 

7) With low damage and high accuracy you risk to have your damage outright blocked even on normal hits.

 

Start from point "1" again.