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

[Morgulon the Wise]

maybe there is a link between body and soul...

[Iucounu]

So that muscles aren't needed anymore? And the heart is perhaps only clocking to nurture the brain? Or lies intelligence in the soul too, so no brain needed? Well, at least that way we'd finally get a totally coherent system, when introducing HP inflation. 

[Micamo]

And with such a mental or soulbased set of attributes, how you're going to distinguish the attackingpower of, say an ogre vs a kobold? You'd still expect the ogre to have a higher damage output, because of his superiour body mass and muscle strenght. And if you implement these attributes for such creatures, you'd expect your pcs to have such attributes as well. Or are these attributes so insignificant to your pc, that they don't play a role at all? Doesn't sound very convincing. 

Or perhaps soulpower is the measure of strength for every creature there is, and muscles and body mass aren't important for nobody. That on the other hand, would just feel alien.

1. I don't think these attributes are supposed to be literal representations of the characters' physical and mental traits the way D&D's ability scores are.

 

2. There's no need for monsters to work off the same set of stats as PCs. Plenty of TTRPGs embrace PC/NPC asymmetry and I see no reason P:E couldn't do the same.

[Infinitron]

 

And with such a mental or soulbased set of attributes, how you're going to distinguish the attackingpower of, say an ogre vs a kobold? You'd still expect the ogre to have a higher damage output, because of his superiour body mass and muscle strenght. And if you implement these attributes for such creatures, you'd expect your pcs to have such attributes as well. Or are these attributes so insignificant to your pc, that they don't play a role at all? Doesn't sound very convincing. 

Or perhaps soulpower is the measure of strength for every creature there is, and muscles and body mass aren't important for nobody. That on the other hand, would just feel alien.

1. I don't think these attributes are supposed to be literal representations of the characters' physical and mental traits the way D&D's ability scores are.

 

2. There's no need for monsters to work off the same set of stats as PCs. Plenty of TTRPGs embrace PC/NPC asymmetry and I see no reason P:E couldn't do the same.

 

 

We know PE will be mostly symmetric: http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/411197934789476762

Edited July 20, 2013 by Infinitron

[Iucounu]

Well, asymmetric systems suck anyway imo. I want my opponents and other creatures in the world to be affected by the same rules than my pc, and this should be reflected in their stats. But I guess there is no accounting for taste.

 

 

 1. I don't think these attributes are supposed to be literal representations of the characters' physical and mental traits the way D&D's ability scores are.

never claimed that. 

[AGX-17]

Due to my superior intellect, I can predict with absolute certainty how all the game mechanics of Project Eternity will work despite the game's pre-alpha state and frequent changes to its design, which you dirty plebian trailer-trash are incapable of calculating with your pitiful simian brain-substitutes.

Thanks for that.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Other people can, using logic and their cognitive capacity, connect the dots and understand the concept. Then, they can make the judgement before the game comes out and help the developers not make horrible mistakes.

Seeing as we don't know how many attributes there will be, what attributes affect, or even what the attributes are, condemning the concept with the current available information is a bit like saying a vehicle won't work when all you know is that it moves.

[Valorian]

 

Due to my superior intellect, I can predict with absolute certainty how all the game mechanics of Project Eternity will work despite the game's pre-alpha state and frequent changes to its design, which you dirty plebian trailer-trash are incapable of calculating with your pitiful simian brain-substitutes.

Thanks for that.

 

 

No problem.

 

Although, I should say that forums would get rather boring if we were required to only discuss and object to game mechanics that are *absolutely*, without doubt, going to remain unchaned.

Otherwise, you're spot-on.

[Valorian]

 

 

Other people can, using logic and their cognitive capacity, connect the dots and understand the concept. Then, they can make the judgement before the game comes out and help the developers not make horrible mistakes.

Seeing as we don't know how many attributes there will be, what attributes affect, or even what the attributes are, condemning the concept with the current available information is a bit like saying a vehicle won't work when all you know is that it moves.

 

 

Oh, you're so spot-on, AGX-17, you really are. :/

 

We know:

 

-It's not the number of Attributes that is unconventional, but how they are applied to derived statistics.

 

-It's more "gamist" than "simulationist". D&D's ability score system tries to be both and, IMO, fails because of it.

 

-all of their bonuses are uniformly applied instead of being keyed to specific types of weapons or attacks

 

-E.g. one Attribute affects bonus damage (and healing) and one affects bonus accuracy -- regardless of the weapons or spells being used

 

-We would like your character concepts to be viable regardless of how you distribute your Attributes.

 

-Part of our solution for this is decoupling things like Attribute-based accuracy and damage bonuses from specific types of gear or class abilities.

 

The focus of your character may change based on how you shift the points around  (NO ****?).

 

 

Of course, you need moar to understand anything about this attribute system and that's ok. But you don't have to be mad at people who already get it. 

 

 

[Valorian]

3rd in a row.

 

And I really.. really, I mean really can't comprehend the existence of the type of brain that would find an attribute system in which an attribute affects both your accuracy with a two-handed sword and your accuracy with a charm spell -- appealing.

...The chace of the sword to hit and the duration of the charm effect in one attribute.

 

Oh, dear fanboys.

 

 

[teknoman2]

And with such a mental or soulbased set of attributes, how you're going to distinguish the attackingpower of, say an ogre vs a kobold? You'd still expect the ogre to have a higher damage output, because of his superiour body mass and muscle strenght. And if you implement these attributes for such creatures, you'd expect your pcs to have such attributes as well. Or are these attributes so insignificant to your pc, that they don't play a role at all? Doesn't sound very convincing. 

Or perhaps soulpower is the measure of strength for every creature there is, and muscles and body mass aren't important for nobody. That on the other hand, would just feel alien. 

well if the damage output of a character is measured by a stat called power, then the ogre has 500 and the goblin 50. simple as that. the stat will determine how hard you can hit with a specific part of your class' skillset, not how big your muscles are. a wizard with lots of power will gain no extra damage for physical attacks, but will do significantly more damage with his spells than the base value, when for a fighter, the power stat means muscles and more muscles and for a thief means more criticals

yes valorian the reason it does is quite simple: the attributes do not represent a physical or mental trait of the character (like strength is raw muscle power, inteligence is brain capacity, charisma is a dump stat for all but paladins), but his efficiency with part of his skillset. they are class based attributes and not character based, which means that each class will gain different benefits from the same stats

let's say there is an attribute called focus.

for a fighter it is the ability to hit more preciselly (more hits than glances).

for a mage it is the ability to keep aoe spells from hitting friends (reduces friendly fire damage),

for a chanter is the ability to keep the chant up under pressure,

for a thief is the ability to spot traps and secret doors,

for a priest is the ability to cast spells faster,

for a cipher is the ability to use charm, dominate, mind read etc more successfully,

for a barbarian is what determines the bonuses he gets when going berserk,

for a ranger is the ability to connect better with his animal companion making the animal stronger

for a druid is the ability that determines how long and how effectively he can take animal form

for a paladin it makes the auras stronger and increases their radius

see how easily the same thing can be something entirely different for each class? would you feel better if the attribute that did all that was called intelligence or wisdom? or if there were 10 attributes and all skills of a class relied on one of them while those of another class relied only on another and the rest was useless (like in DnD, a fighter needed strength and the rest were useless)? 

Edited July 20, 2013 by teknoman2

[Micamo]

Even if this *were* a problem, which it isn't, it's easily fixed just by being creative with the names and descriptions.

 

E.g. I could easily see an attribute that affects to-hit chances with weapons as well as to-hit chances with spells (IIRC P:E is using a 4E-style defenses system instead of saving throws; sub with save DCs if I'm wrong) being called "Discipline." A character with a high discipline is careful and exacting about how they go about things, while a character with low discipline is sloppier, more reckless.

[Iucounu]

well if the damage output of a character is measured by a stat called power, then the ogre has 500 and the goblin 50. simple as that. the stat will determine how hard you can hit with a specific part of your class' skillset, not how big your muscles are. a wizard with lots of power will gain no extra damage for physical attacks, but will do significantly more damage with his spells than the base value, when for a fighter, the power stat means muscles and more muscles and for a thief means more criticals

And of course, an ogre mage would again have a power of 500, and a goblin wizard a power of 50..

For what do actually have stats then? If it is that way with this class, and the other way with the other class, it would make more sense for it to be some class skill. 

Edited July 20, 2013 by Iucounu

[teknoman2]

 

well if the damage output of a character is measured by a stat called power, then the ogre has 500 and the goblin 50. simple as that. the stat will determine how hard you can hit with a specific part of your class' skillset, not how big your muscles are. a wizard with lots of power will gain no extra damage for physical attacks, but will do significantly more damage with his spells than the base value, when for a fighter, the power stat means muscles and more muscles and for a thief means more criticals

And of course, an ogre mage would again have a power of 500, and a goblin wizard a power of 50..

For what do actually have stats then? If it is that way with this class, and the other way with the other class, it would make more sense for it to be some class skill. 

 

and why would the goblin wizard have 50? it's not like you have to give the same value to all population of a species and all it's classes. an ogre fighter will have 10 times more power than a goblin fighter for obvious reasons, but that does not mean that a goblin shaman cant have 10 times more power than an ogre mage. the power in this case affects the quality of the spells non the physical strength or size

[Iucounu]

Its still the same attribute, and attributes, at least that's my understanding, are your inborn abilities. That's what seperates them from skills, or not? They should depend on your race at best, not your class. 

And if you say, a goblin fighter can only have so much power, and a ogre has so much power, than the actual attribute or stat for me would not be the power, but the actual limitation of the power stat for a specific race with a certain class. 

Edited July 20, 2013 by Iucounu

[teknoman2]

Its still the same attribute, and attributes, at least that's my understanding, are your inborn abilities. That's what seperates them from skills, or not? They should depend on your race at best, not your class. 

And if you say, a goblin fighter can only have so much power, and a ogre has so much power, than the actual attribute or stat for me would not be the power, but the actual limitation of the power stat for a specific race with a certain class. 

those are DnD pre 3rd edition attributes. and as i said the attributes here are stats that indicate something based on the class and not the race.

a wizard with 500power, can do 600 damage with a fireball, while a wizard with 300 power, can only do 400 damage. however any of the 2 wizards, cant do more than the basic damage of their weapon if they engage in melee (let's say it's a staff that does 15 damage, they can do only 15 damage/hit if they attack with it). now a fighter with 400 power, will do 415 damage if he takes that staff and attacks in melee and if by any means he could cast a fireball, it would only do 100 damage

the way i understand it, attributes in eternity are abstract stats that indicate the character's affinity with parts of his skillset, and not direct indications of muscle mass or agility.

[Iucounu]

Well, that for instance every wizard  only causes base damage with his weapon strikes me to be a bit weird. But affinity with a certain skillset.. ok. 

Edited July 20, 2013 by Iucounu

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Even if this *were* a problem, which it isn't, it's easily fixed just by being creative with the names and descriptions.E.g. I could easily see an attribute that affects to-hit chances with weapons as well as to-hit chances with spells (IIRC P:E is using a 4E-style defenses system instead of saving throws; sub with save DCs if I'm wrong) being called "Discipline." A character with a high discipline is careful and exacting about how they go about things, while a character with low discipline is sloppier, more reckless.

Keep your calm logic out! We need to whine about a system that we don't actually know the specifics about!

 

Has anyone bitched about Sawyer not liking Baldur's Gate 2 yet?

[Iucounu]

If you mean me, I was just discussing a possible implementation of the system, not the one Obsidian will use, as I don't really know how it will look like. In any case, no reason to bitch around. 

[teknoman2]

Well, that for instance every wizard  only causes base damage with his weapon strikes me to be a bit weird. But affinity with a certain skillset.. ok. 

he doesnt have to... he may get a skill that allows him to use magic to buff up his physical attacks, adding thus a part of his power to the weapon damage, but not all of his power like a fighter would

[Ffordesoon]

And I really.. really, I mean really can't comprehend the existence of the type of brain that would find an attribute system in which an attribute affects both your accuracy with a two-handed sword and your accuracy with a charm spell -- appealing.

...The chace of the sword to hit and the duration of the charm effect in one attribute.

So you can't comprehend why someone would be alright with that system (which may or may not be in PE), but you can comprehend the intricacies of that system before they're announced?

 

I love the fact that a modicum of empathy is the deciding factor between what you can comprehend and what you can't. It's almost as if you are not actually precognitive!

[jamoecw]

 

Well, that for instance every wizard  only causes base damage with his weapon strikes me to be a bit weird. But affinity with a certain skillset.. ok. 

he doesnt have to... he may get a skill that allows him to use magic to buff up his physical attacks, adding thus a part of his power to the weapon damage, but not all of his power like a fighter would

 

so if you want a sword wielding mage, then you'd have to take a feat that helps him impart his power to (fueled by his soul) his sword, like a fighter does (as fighters use some sort of monk-like fighter soul magic).  and it doesn't have to be a single fea that imparts all of the sword ability, it could be a series of feats (like D&D dual wielding feats).

 

the discussion you had really helped me see the 'not-so-bad' side of it, so thank you.

[Karkarov]

Uh can you say not enough information?

 

Way too vague to form any kind of solid opinion.  Though personally I see no reason to think it is a bad move outright.  Maybe they just went with a new stat concept, like each class has unique stats.  So a Fighter has "Strength, Agility, Constitution, and Dexterity" but a Mage has "Spirit, Willpower, Cunning, and Constitution" Con being the only constant across all classes or something.  Basically if the stat doesn't apply to the class then they don't have the stat.

[butterfly]

There's enough information to make solid predictions about some things. By example speculation about attributes working different for wizards than warriors doesn't jive with design philosophy they have maintained up till today. A wizard wielding a sword will get same boni from attributes as the fighter does.

 

There is however room to speculate about how important each attribute will be for each class or build. One attribute may increase accuracy but if you're build doesn't focus on hitting things it may be a bad investment, i.e a wizard specialising in aoe effects vs magic misile caster, a fighter focusing on controlling the battlefield vs damage dealer.

[Kalderas]

I liked my lvl based spell dmg but i not going to hate the new system i guess.