Attribute theory

[Yonjuro]

 

...

 

That said, as time goes by and I think on it and read people's arguments for and against the original system, I'm growing to like it more and more. It definitely has flaws, but it also has an elegance that any fix seems to diminish. And to me Might and Power have similar connotations as Strength, so renaming that stat but keeping the same function wouldn't really do anything except maybe signal the break from D&D tradition more clearly.

 

For the record, I agree about the original system. 

 

 If it were up to me, I might rename 'Intellect' to something like 'Dedication' (i.e. a character that practices their damage dealing craft, whatever it is, is able to do more damage than one who practices less) and also rename 'Strength' to, well, anything but 'Strength' for the reason Gumbercules pointed out.

 

 It seems like a lot of thought went into the attribute system, and I think I can infer a few things about the mechanics of the game from how they are laid out (meaning that mucking around with them too much apart from naming probably isn't a great idea).

Edited December 19, 2013 by Yonjuro

[rjshae]

A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this:

...

 

What would you assume the stat that affects damage would be? Based on that answer, if you discovered that stat affected all damage and healing, including damage and healing from sources like guns and wands and bows and fireball spells, how would you feel about it?

 

I'd have mixed feelings about using a single stat in that manner because the list represents different technologies. But I'd probably be okay with using different pairs of stats in a rock-paper-scissors fashion. E.g. melee damage from Might & Intellect, bow damage from Intellect & Dexterity, wand damage from Dexterity & Resolve, spell damage from Resolve & Might.

[Sabotin]

How about leaving the stats as they are, but have the weapons derive bonuses from an appropriate stat? Intellect increases damage/healing always, but if you have a greatsword then Strength also contributes or Dexterity with a bow or fencing weapons and maybe Perception or Resolve for implements.

[Ganrich]

The former DnD nerd in me sees Strength makes you hit harder, Intelligence makes your arcane magic better, Etc, etc. However, when the current system was explained I really liked it because I understand a warrior with the moderate muscle mass would decimate a body builder with no training. That training the warrior has is a form of intellect. Intelligence in DnD is book smarts and logic, but I think many can see there are other forms of intelligence not covered there (in DnD those are covered with Wisdom to an extent and sometimes charisma [like the knowledge of bartering, lying, diplomacy, ect.]). Knowledge of combat technique is a form of intelligence and I can understand this system going this route.

 

Intelligence makes the most sense to me to govern healing and damage simultaneously. Most generals are very intelligent people (I said 'most'), but they may not understand quantum mechanics. While a knight with experience understands how to gauge his enemy, tactics, weaknesses in armor, etc. He won't understand the mysteries of the arcane though. His intelligence was used to master his body and the battlefield but not the arcane.

 

Looking at guns/bows/xbows etc. Understanding bullet/arrow drop, leading the target, proper breathing, once again weaknesses in armor, etc are all a form of knowledge. While with wands... If you don't know how to handle the item in question you aren't going to use it to any great effect. Heck, you might blow yourself up.

 

I don't think anyone could argue that intelligence works perfectly for healing across the board. It would encompass both arcane and mundane healing techniques if they are available in game.

 

Also, I think that many backers will read the stat, skill, and feat tool tips (read that manual!!) thoroughly enough that changing the ideology here from the standard affair will have a fairly negligible effect. We are pnp jockeys for the most part, and some want to understand the rules thoroughly in order to power game while others want to make the character that they want down to the perfect animal companion (hamster of course).

[ItinerantNomad]

This is why I think you should move completely away from the old traditions of might,intellect, etc and continue with wat you were doing with resolve. I understand that you're trying to use these as dialogue/story checks too so you make the term broad enough to fit both combat checks and story checks. Resolve is a good example.

 

Resolve - charisma + strength of personality

Facility - control over the body (accuracy) + acrobatics

Power - strength of mind and body when dealing damage, ability to move objects with mind/body/soul

Constitution -

Intuition -

etc etc

 

a good broad term will help players think in the right mindset, even if it doesn't make much of a mechanical difference.

Edited December 19, 2013 by ItinerantNomad

[Caerdon]

 

A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this:

 

Might

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

or

 

Power

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

What would you assume the stat that affects damage would be? Based on that answer, if you discovered that stat affected all damage and healing, including damage and healing from sources like guns and wands and bows and fireball spells, how would you feel about it?

 

I would assume the stat affecting damage is Might/Power, and I would be perfectly OK with all damage governed by a single stat, as long as the game can be balanced so that it doesn't make this stat too important compared to the others.

 

When there are only six attributes that represent the entirety of a person, each attribute by necessity has to be a combination of several aspects we would ordinarily consider unrelated or independent of each other. For this reason I find Might or Power better names for the stat than Strength, they are more abstract and make it clear they refer to more than just plain physical strength.

[Ganrich]

On the note of might vs power vs strength I would prefer might over the other 2 if the reason for that change is to avoid previous associations to the word from fooling people. Power is used in a few MMOs as a damage increasing stat (SWTOR comes to mind), and we all know where strength has been used. I don't know though. Any of the three would work.

 

If we are trying to avoid the player assuming that strength/might/power implies damage increase... might I suggest that we change Stregth/Might/Power to Constitution, and change Constitution over to Endurance.

 

The reasons being that:

 

Constitution has, more often than not, increased health. Not so much Stamina. The more healthy you are... The more you can carry.

Endurance implies the ability to keep from being winded when you are really pushing yourself. So, it makes sense for stamina since it, I believe, regenerates between combats.

 

So instead of:

 

Str/might/power

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

We would get:

 

Constitution - increase health and inventory slots

Endurance - increase stamina

Dexterity - accuracy

Perception - critical damage

Intellect - damage and healing

Resolve - duration and AoE

 

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

[Elerond]

Might and power would come first in mind, but it's because strength/might/power/etc. attribute is commonly used for damage in rpgs. Intellect/expertise/know-how is in mind also quite logical attribute for damage and healing as you actually need to know how to use your weapons if you actually want to inflict damage to someone/thing.

 

Although I could see system where you need specific amount might/power/strength to use your weapons with ease, meaning that if your attribute is lower than what weapon needs, weapon's base damage is lower or you can't use that weapon and if your might is much higher than what weapons needs then that weapon's base damage could be bit higher for you. For example if characters might is five point below weapon's limit character can't use it, if attribute is 1-4 point lower than limit weapon's base damage is 25-50% lower than what it would be for character who has enough might and if character's might is over five points higher than weapon's limit then weapon's base damage could be 10-30% higher than normally.

Of course this would make damage depend on two different attributes.

[rjshae]

Maybe Spirit rather than Might? I.e. reflective of the power of your soul as communicated through your body.

[Orogun01]

In D&D, a lot of classes already have a single stat that governs damage.  For fighters, it's Strength.  You can easily play a Strength-damage fighter from level 1 on.  The issue, IMO, is not that there's a single stat that governs damage for any given class (or all classes), but that there are many stats that do not provide an appealing incentive to take instead of that damage stat.

For video games that's usually because the focus is more on the combat rather than on the role playing aspects.

 

I tend to favor attribute interdependence because of that, if two attributes affect the same value then it gives player more leeway towards building their character. For example if damage was calculated on of both dex and str it would allow player to make rogues that are useful in battle. 

[Ganrich]

I was just thinking about Body instead of Strength.

[Lephys]

Okay, in answer to Josh's question, yes, it would be Might/Power (as the damage-producing stat). However, in answer to the second part, I would feel equally as weird about Might/Power (Strength... whatever you want to call it) governing ALL damage as I feel about Intellect governing ALL damage.

 

I really, truly believe that the system need not be boiled down to simply "damage" that somehow gets applied to all things. And here's my main reason for believing this:

 

We're already representing the nuances and sources of damage in other ways.

 

You've got 4 different defenses (as I pointed out earlier) which decide when and how damage is applied from various sources/methods (including how MUCH damage is dealt, thanks to the Attack Resolution scale).

 

You've got different weapon types and different armor types (even though the specifics of that are still in flux).

 

Etc. So, it seems like an arbitrarily forced thing to make sure one stat = damage bonus, across the board, when so many other things affect the actual application and generation of damage.

 

So, I can't tell you exactly how to do it, no. But, I firmly believe that we should separate out the aspects of damage. I think it already makes sense for damage to not come directly from a stat, as it's already governed by so many other factors and conditions. So, I think that, in whatever form it occurs, Strength should affect the capability to generate force, and Intellect should affect the intelligent application of that force. For non-physical/spell damage, you could even go with Intellect and Resolve or something (with Resolve acting like a metaphysical Strength, and determining the force/potency of spells and such, including magical healing, etc.). 

 

There've been oodles of good ideas tossed around in here on ways in which to allow Strength to play its part in the formula. But, as I said, however it's done, I think that's the best road to be looking at. The best question to be asking. "What should be affected by Strength, and how should that affect damage?" The same goes for other stats. Really, that's what is happening with Perception. Perception affects Accuracy, and accuracy affects damage (by increasing the consistency of normal-damage and/or critical-damage hits). Perception affects damage, but Perception does not = damage. It's not that simple. Each point in Perception doesn't give you +1 to damage. And Strength (OR Intellect) don't need to, either.

 

One thing I'd like to add to the list of suggestions is Attack Resolution range:

 

Strength could inflate your Hit range (by squeezing your Graze range to a smaller size), and Intellect could increase your Crit range (by squeezing your Hit range to a smaller size).

 

For example, if you had no Strength bonus, but an awesome Intellect, then your crit range could be 10, by default, instead of 5. So, the equal-Accuracy-and-enemy-defense baseline would be (miss-graze-hit-crit) 5-45-40-10. Or, if you had a nice Strength bonus, and no Intellect, it could be 5-35-55-5. Or, if you had BOTH (Strength and Intellect example bonuses), it would be 5-35-50-10.

 

Again, that's the base. Meaning that, if the opponent's defense was 5 points higher than your Accuracy, you'd still have 5% chance to crit.

 

Anywho... that's just another thing that could be affected, is all. Doesn't mean it's the only thing that has to be affected.

 

But, I strongly urge Team Obsidian to consider splitting the effects of both Strength and Intellect for the purposes of damage. It's much like the idea behind the stats in the first place, right?

 

If you have an Intelligent Fighter, it won't be a bad Fighter, it'll just be a different Fighter from a Strong one. "Damage" is a very broad thing, and with so many other factors governing its resulting value, I don't think deriving it from more than one stat (or different aspects of it from different stats) would be completely out-of-place here.

[Nonek]

 

A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this:

 

Might

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

or

 

Power

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

What would you assume the stat that affects damage would be? Based on that answer, if you discovered that stat affected all damage and healing, including damage and healing from sources like guns and wands and bows and fireball spells, how would you feel about it?

 

 

Honestly I would say that Ferocity or a similar term would be better to describe a function covering all of those options, perhaps totally ditch Strength of any description as a stat and allow stature to be decided by a trait like in Fallout?

 

Edit: On the subject of a well trained warrior beating a dumb one, isn't training with ones accoutrements a matter of level and experience rather than intellect?

Edited December 20, 2013 by Nonek

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I think that if Strength does not affect damage, like you said, it should maybe give speed benefits for wearing heavy armor (if it is also the stat that affects inventory space).

 

Dexterity is the stat I don't like, and never have. It feels to me that the term is very broad.

 

My thoughts on offensive bonuses:

Strength - damage output for weapons improve, mitigate slower movement while wearing armor, stamina increase

Constitution - Health increase, more inventory space

Agility - Faster attacks with any weapon, improves dodging

Perception - Improves ranged damage and accuracy for all weapons, spells

Intellect - Increases critical damage for everything, including spells, increased spell damage

Resolve - The one stat I'm in complete agreement with you

 

Fortitude, willpower and reflexes would still be governed by two attributes each like you posted earlier in the thread.

 

I like this, and had a very similar setup for another game.

 

Fitness - Strength & Constitution combined. Governed martial (melee, tension, and thrown weapons)

Coordination - Essentially Dexterity. Fine motor skills, agility, accuracy with ranged weapons.

Reasoning - Merged Intelligence & Wisdom. Ability to learn spells, lore, etc.

Perception - Trap detection, spell identification, foe assessment, influenced clerics for learning spells.

Ego - Quasi-charisma stat. Interpersonal skills, sense of identity and self, spell damage/intensity, spell control.

 

Martial (weapons), Partical (traps, mechanical, stealth, etc.), Academic (science, certain lore), Arcane (magic, certain lore), and Social (conversation skills, barter, certain lore) comprised everything else. Five attributes, five skills. All checks were a combination of two or more--but generally two. Very simple, very elegant.

[Tamerlane]

 

A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this:

 

Might

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

or

 

Power

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

What would you assume the stat that affects damage would be? Based on that answer, if you discovered that stat affected all damage and healing, including damage and healing from sources like guns and wands and bows and fireball spells, how would you feel about it?

 

Operating with the understanding that you're trying to make all attributes valuable for all classes, I would assume:

 

 

Power/Might: Damage

Constitution: Health, stamina, maybe carrying capacity?

Dexterity: Attack speed

Perception: Accuracy

Intellect: Critical damage

Resolve: I would have no natural guess for this, but duration and AoE seems cool, I guess

 

Don't think anything would ever be simultaneously perfect for Mah Immersion and actually being fun, but... eh, whatever.

[Ganrich]

@Nonek - I was taking level and experience out of the equation at that moment when making the warrior vs muscle man point. However, you would be correct that it is the case in most RPGs. It isn't only learning 'how' to hit, but when/where/how you 'should' strike. Applying the things you learned over those levels and experience takes a form of intelligence.

 

All things being equal, when both the cunning warrior moderately strong and the muscle man are equal level who would do more damage? The man who has bigger muscles? Or the cunning man who has, through intellect, learned to apply what he has learned (weak spots, anatomy, physics, etc) more aptly in a fight?

 

To use an example from The Dark Knight Returns (comic not movie):

Batman vs The Mutant Leader. Batman gets beaten by the mutant leader the first fight. Then in round 2 Batman wins. He knew from the first fight that The Mutant Leader was younger, faster, and stronger. So he chooses a place to fight that levels the odds by slowing the Leader down. Batman does this a lot. He uses the application of knowledge to beat an equal or superior adversary. This isn't something a muscle man of weaker intelligence could do as easily. It took 2 fights in this case IMHO because Batman had been out of practice for 10 years, but in many fights he solves problems like this or is ready for them. Batman learns how to fight them, when to hit them, where to hit them, and how to hit them. He doesn't always just flex muscles.

 

 

The Batman example isn't the best because it isn't necessarily about damage, but it is just me trying to explain my point that a smart warrior > a strong guy. So, in RPG terms, if you win... You won the Damage race vs the enemy. Kind of circular logic but it is what it is.

 

I am not saying the old ideologies aren't correct in their own way so much as saying I understand why intellect was chosen here. In short, training and experience fall on def ears if the student isn't intelligent enough to apply the knowledge.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Ganrich

[Orogun01]

Edit: On the subject of a well trained warrior beating a dumb one, isn't training with ones accoutrements a matter of level and experience rather than intellect?

There are different types of intelligence(kinetic in this case) and just like a dancer can pick up a choreography so can an experienced martial artist gain a new style faster.

 

[Nonek]

@Nonek - I was taking level and experience out of the equation at that moment when making the warrior vs muscle man point. However, you would be correct that it is the case in most RPGs. It isn't only learning 'how' to hit, but when/where/how you 'should' strike. Applying the things you learned over those levels and experience takes a form of intelligence.

 

All things being equal, when both the cunning warrior moderately strong and the muscle man are equal level who would do more damage? The man who has bigger muscles? Or the cunning man who has, through intellect, learned to apply what he has learned (weak spots, anatomy, physics, etc) more aptly in a fight?

 

To use an example from The Dark Knight Returns (comic not movie):

Batman vs The Mutant Leader. Batman gets beaten by the mutant leader the first fight. Then in round 2 Batman wins. He knew from the first fight that The Mutant Leader was younger, faster, and stronger. So he chooses a place to fight that levels the odds by slowing the Leader down. Batman does this a lot. He uses the application of knowledge to beat an equal or superior adversary. This isn't something a muscle man of weaker intelligence could do as easily. It took 2 fights in this case IMHO because Batman had been out of practice for 10 years, but in many fights he solves problems like this or is ready for them. Batman learns how to fight them, when to hit them, where to hit them, and how to hit them. He doesn't always just flex muscles.

 

 

The Batman example isn't the best because it isn't necessarily about damage, but it is just me trying to explain my point that a smart warrior > a strong guy. So, in RPG terms, if you win... You won the Damage race vs the enemy. Kind of circular logic but it is what it is.

 

I am not saying the old ideologies aren't correct in their own way so much as saying I understand why intellect was chosen here. In short, training and experience fall on def ears if the student isn't intelligent enough to apply the knowledge.

 

Well to make the example balanced I would ask what strengths and weaknesses the two gentlemen would have under Mr Sawyer's system? Obviously our dumb brute has to be spending his points somewhere, so I would suggest that he is focusing on strength and constitution, that he is middling with perception and resolve, and as allready established poor with dexterity and intellect. Our other friend is as established dextrous and intelligent, middling in strength and I would suggest perception to complement his dexterity, and therefore by extension poor at constitution and resolve.

 

Putting aside any training and making both gentlemen first level with the exact same basic training, i'm not so sure that the fast and intelligent man would win. He has far less Stamina, he has less health and cannot take as much punishment, and thanks to poor resolve has less bottom and backbone than our brute. Obviously he will be getting hit far less often and dealing out a lot more little hits to the brute, but the brute can take that punishment thanks to far superior health and stamina, and it only takes a blow or two to render the fragile thinker either comatose or routing due to his lack of grit.

 

I would say that that melee would be all down to the luck of the dice.

 

As for Batman, i've never thought of him as being particularly intelligent or seen any indication in media that he is. After all why bother fighting these criminals toe to toe when a Barret .50 would do the job in a far more permanent fashion from half a mile away?

 

Edit: A good point Orogun as usual, but might not the brutes superior resolve make him also a promising student, after all genius is one part inspiration and ninety nine parts perspiration?

Edited December 20, 2013 by Nonek

[Ganrich]

Like I said: batman wasn't the best example, but I couldn't think of one as apt. I think he is fairly intelligent. I imagine a man that watches his parents get shot down in front of him as a child may have issues with firearms. I wouldn't say that not using guns makes batman stupid. Just principled. He is supposedly the best detective in the world, but a fictional detective is only ever as intelligent as the man writing the plot, and batman has never been written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

 

If the fast intelligent man knows to stay away from the brute and wait for an opportune moment so he could inflict a few big hits if he uses physics, anatomy, and speed. Very little pressure or strength is needed to do great damage to the human body. Joints are very susceptible regardless of muscle mass, your temple is a weak point, you can use the opponents weight against them, etc etc. The smart man would wait and strike at weak spots.

 

You are right though. It is all down to the dice. It could go either way. The smart man could fail to avoid attacks, he may miss crucial chances to attack, or what have you. The strong man could roll that perfect critical, or whatever. In the end I see this, in MMORPG terms, as a tank (Strong man) vs DPS (fast intelligent man). You have a different outlook, and that is cool.

 

With the system in place a strong average or less intelligent fighter could do well in DPS by speccing some into dex (accuracy) and perception(critical), and use strength to make him tanky like a fighter, barbarian, Pally character should be. It hasn't been stated that a warrior class type would need much in the way of intelligence to do solid damage, but that when int is specced the character may be a little less tanky and more damage oriented.

 

A fighter with higher than average str, con, and perception would be bursty because of criticals.

A fighter with higher than average str, con, and intellect would be more sustained damage.

A fighter with higher than average str, con, resolve could have a more whirl wind AoE style.

A fighter that focuses purely on str and con is a tank.

 

I see it as pretty versatile. It may be less so for the power gamer/munchkiner though. The perfect build will out for those that want it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this:

 

Might

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

or

 

Power

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

What would you assume the stat that affects damage would be? Based on that answer, if you discovered that stat affected all damage and healing, including damage and healing from sources like guns and wands and bows and fireball spells, how would you feel about it?

Might/Power. I would be fine with it, as I'm perfectly happy to throw simulationist attributes overboard. In all honesty, I would prefer attributes that reflected the characteristics of a soul more than a body, as that would (1) mesh well with the soul-oriented power of PoE and (2) would probably avoid confusing/pissing people off as much as assigning new roles to attirbutes they are familiar with doing a certain thing.

 

As for Batman, i've never thought of him as being particularly intelligent or seen any indication in media that he is. After all why bother fighting these criminals toe to toe when a Barret .50 would do the job in a far more permanent fashion from half a mile away?

Batman is mentally ill.

Edited December 20, 2013 by KaineParker

[Marky]

I quite like Ganrich's suggestion of changing the names of "strength and constitution", to "constitution and endurance". I would also suggest willpower as a replacement for strength, it seems more fitting with the in-game mechanics than strength does.

 

Willpower - increase health and inventory slots
Endurance - increase stamina
Dexterity - accuracy
Perception - critical damage
Intellect - damage and healing
Resolve - duration and AoE

[Lephys]

I would wager that knowing the best places to strike and the best techniques to use for maximum effectiveness (ergo "damage") is more an issue of knowledge than it is of Intellect. Granted, a genius is probably going to figure it all out more quickly, with fewer resources (no teacher, etc.), and figure out MORE and BETTER ways of doing it all than someone else. However, even the (to put it simply) dumbest brute around can master one thing, if taught. As long as he's got memory, and the dexterity sufficient to hit where he aims, he's going to remember "When I hit people in the neck, they die real fast. But when I hit them in the arm or something, they don't die right away." Etc.

 

There are artisans/craftsmen who don't know how to do much else at all, and can't really figure out a lot on their own, but who grew up apprenticed to someone else, and were shown a way to do something, memorized it, repeated it, and have simply practiced it so much now that they are extremely precise at their technique.

 

Granted, in abstraction, I have no issue with simply "Intellect," overall, affecting this. But, even in abstraction, there's room for a knowledge skill to affect this, as separate from pure physical capability (and even separate from overall Intellect).

Edited December 20, 2013 by Lephys

[Orogun01]

Edit: A good point Orogun as usual, but might not the brutes superior resolve make him also a promising student, after all genius is one part inspiration and ninety nine parts perspiration?

Yes, and the guy who said that quote was a fifth grade expel who made most of his fortune by being a major **** and stealing about half of his patents.

 

Intelligence is a measure of how well one can perform certain task; although it doesn't mean that they're physically capable of doing so. I think this discussion is too focused on which is better rather than seeing both as just different approaches to combat. The difference is that one has more in terms of strategy than the other, so they can end up turning the battle to their favor but a strong opponent has the advantage physically. 

 

Personally, I think that someone with a high intellect will try to stay out of fights with muscly giants.

[Silent Winter]

I would wager that knowing the best places to strike and the best techniques to use for maximum effectiveness (ergo "damage") is more an issue of knowledge than it is of Intellect. Granted, a genius is probably going to figure it all out more quickly, with fewer resources (no teacher, etc.), and figure out MORE and BETTER ways of doing it all than someone else. However, even the (to put it simply) dumbest brute around can master one thing, if taught. As long as he's got memory, and the dexterity sufficient to hit where he aims, he's going to remember "When I hit people in the neck, they die real fast. But when I hit them in the arm or something, they don't die right away." Etc.

Not exactly - knowledge v. skill is a big difference - I know 10 simple ways to kill somebody with bare hands, but I can't do it (and not just because I can't bring myself to do it) - it's about practising the skill until your action is both precise and coordinated (and well-timed to beat their defence but I'm including that under coordinated).

Your big-dumb brute who mastered the skill of hitting there is developing skill, not knowledge when he's able to strike well.  If he just knows where to hit then he'll likely miss, without training, either because he's uncoordinated or because he telegraphs his punch and the other guy avoids it.

A lightly muscled guy like me can be just as effective at striking the throat as a guy 3 times my size - there's only so much dead you can get

[cue 'The Princess Bride' quotes]

Edit: yes, I know that's fistycuffs and not armed against armoured opponents but the same principle applies.

 

 

A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this:

...

...

What would you assume the stat that affects damage would be? Based on that answer, if you discovered that stat affected all damage and healing, including damage and healing from sources like guns and wands and bows and fireball spells, how would you feel about it?

 

 

I'd assume might/power governed melee damage (not because it should but because it traditionally does) and I could see it governing spell-damage (since magical might/power is a fine term) - but I'd feel a big weird about it governing firearms/bow damage.

 

As above comment, some kind of 'skill' (though that's too broad) term would be better for  me.

Though actually, I like the suggestion by Ganrich:

If we are trying to avoid the player assuming that strength/might/power implies damage increase... might I suggest that we change Stregth/Might/Power to Constitution, and change Constitution over to Endurance.

...

We would get:

 

Constitution - increase health and inventory slots

Endurance - increase stamina

Dexterity - accuracy

Perception - critical damage

Intellect - damage and healing

Resolve - duration and AoE

 

In the end though - I'll end up reading the manual at work and figuring out what does what in the game and playing from there - if it's fun to play, it's fun to play (and if it's fun to replay then I'll be a happy camperbacker)

Edited December 20, 2013 by Silent Winter

[Lephys]

Not exactly - knowledge v. skill is a big difference - I know 10 simple ways to kill somebody with bare hands, but I can't do it (and not just because I can't bring myself to do it) - it's about practising the skill until your action is both precise and coordinated (and well-timed to beat their defence but I'm including that under coordinated).

Your big-dumb brute who mastered the skill of hitting there is developing skill, not knowledge when he's able to strike well.  If he just knows where to hit then he'll likely miss, without training, either because he's uncoordinated or because he telegraphs his punch and the other guy avoids it.

A lightly muscled guy like me can be just as effective at striking the throat as a guy 3 times my size - there's only so much dead you can get

Ahh, I fear I was unclear.

 

I was saying that it was more a matter of knowledge than of sheer intellect/intelligence/smarts/cleverness, not that it was more knowledge than skill, or that skill/capability wasn't involved.

 

All I meant was, smart people might figure out the best places to strike someone, but that doesn't mean everyone who knows the best places to strike someone utilized smarts to figure it out.