Attribute theory

[PrimeJunta]

I'm not sure deflection is purely gear-dependent. I think it's possible -- even likely -- that there are talents and other class-related abilities you can buy when leveling up. All we know is that it's not affected by your attributes.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

How do swashbuckler style characters work, when deflection is purely gear dependent? Does light armor give that instead of damage resistance or something?

 

I think it's mostly class- and level-dependent. Armors give DR, that's for sure.

[Labadal]

Doesn't deflection come from shields? I keep mixing things up but I think DT is armor related and deflection is shield related.

[decado]

Strength should be a derived stat, much like HP or Stamina.  And it should be variable.  A person that hasn't eaten in three days tends to be pretty weak.  Same thing if they are sick, or under the influence of a spell, or at a really high altitude and freezing their balls off.  

 

I think the way most games have used strength as a stat have gotten it wrong.

[Lephys]

Strength should be a derived stat, much like HP or Stamina.  And it should be variable.  A person that hasn't eaten in three days tends to be pretty weak.  Same thing if they are sick, or under the influence of a spell, or at a really high altitude and freezing their balls off.  

 

I think the way most games have used strength as a stat have gotten it wrong.

I understand why you're saying that, but if we applied the same reasoning to, say, Constitution (typical, DnD Constitution), then your CON would decrease as your HP did. "Down to 1 HP? You're now really bad at resisting poisons and all other Constitution checks."

 

Not that you can't have Strength penalties, but I don't think it should go so far as to practically function like a pool or something. "Oh, you're really tired? Your Strength is 2 instead of 15."

 

In other words, I don't think a stat is a measure of the quantity of a given aspect you can muster at any given moment. It's more a measure of your all-factors-aside rating, for the purposes of relating it to someone else's. So, if you have 18 Strength, and you're suffering from food deprivation, you're going to be better off than someone with only 8 Strength suffering the exact same deprivation. Which is why such penalties are typically "-1" or "-2".

 

Basically, I agree that your actual given "battery" of strength-juice should be variable (and represented in some way), but I don't think just deriving your given stat value at any point in time from dozens of variables is the way to go.

 

Look at it like Intelligence. If you get a bunch of knowledge out of books, your Intelligence doesn't go up. But it doesn't go down just because you lack knowledge. You simply can't utilize the extent of your Intelligence to great effect if you lack any knowledge. Like a riddle in a different language. Maybe you're clever enough to solve the riddle, but not if you can't read the language.

 

Or, a better example would be if you're stunned. Your agility doesn't decrease, because it's a measure of how agile you are capable of being, not how much you can move at any given instant.

 

 

As for Deflection and how to handle characters who are quite skilled at parrying and the like (or really anything beyond just the sheer passive deflection rating of armor/shields, etc.), there are a lot of ways to do that. Something like "Parry" can be an ability, much like the Rogue's "Reversal," that you activate, but doesn't work 'til the next attack, and it could add some bonus to Deflection against that next attack against that character. Then, it could have a cooldown, essentially (as they could only Parry so often successfully). This way, it could either be something AI can use to parry every 10th attack or something, OR it could be intentionally timed whenever you see some Ogre Lord rearing back to strike.

 

Or, it could even be a % chance to gain +X deflection against an incoming attack. Not that it CAN'T be a hard bonus (a la "You've got this Parry Master Feat (talent), so you get +10 to Deflection), because Deflection already affects the opponent's % chance to hit you. I guess a percentage change to alter a percentage chance might be a bit much, heh. Maybe not, though.

 

It'll be very interesting to find out the details of this, when they're ready to tell us about it.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Lephys

[Hamenaglar]

I think currently, attributes don't make sense. Josh says he wants all the builds be viable but I think he is going the wrong way about it.

 

If I wanted to play a smart fighter, I wouldn't want to bash things with my hammer. I would act differently. I would learn about enemies and prepare my self (out-of combat benefits). If I'm smart and agile I would look to tire my opponent by dodging his attacks and when he exposes him self launch counter strikes (rope-a-dope kind of thing, a mode that increases defense and damage/crit chance but decreases hit chance/attack speed). If I'm smart and perceptive I would look for his weakness and exploit it (increasing crit chance and/or to hit chance and/or decreasing base damage - kinda like finesse in fallout). Or if I'm smart and charismatic I would try to taunt my opponent and provoke him into opening (debuffing?). Maybe I'm more of a commander type of guy so I will instruct my teammates into good positions (giving bonuses to companions).

 

If I'm a brute wizard. I'm not maybe as smart, but I learned to use my physical strength to channel more energy and do more damage. Intellect is still important though so that I can learn many spells. On the other hand maybe I want to be a smart but frail wizard that can cast insanely powerful spell with his mind only.

 

Strength is representation of physical power. As such strength should modify damage with melee weapons and maybe bows. As well it would allow characters to wield larger guns and crossbows. Perhaps also increase crossbow reload speed. So in an indirect way it increases damage of ranged characters as well. It would partially increase spell damage (and partially it would be increased by intellect).

 

I'm all for making all attributes useful and all builds viable. But intellect should provide different bonuses to melee characters (more abilities perhaps, more skill perhaps, more versatile build perhaps?). It should not provide damage bonus to make it useful. Right now it seems to me that a fighter should prioritize intellect more than strength.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Hamenaglar

[Adhin]

Those are some fine points Hamenaglar, definitely agree with it. I'd add I think spells should do the bulk of there damage due to the spell its self not via an attribute (like melee in DnD is nearly 1/3rd driven by attributes). Maybe they should just come up with a general effect each stat does, and leave damage as a per-action thing. Strength still boost health, but it effects most melee weapons in damage to some extent, doesn't have to be huge.

 

I kinda like spells getting a small dmg bonus split between strength and int, though that could also be on a spell by spell basis. Could have a line of body intensive ones or something I dunno.

 

Anyway, good post.

[jamoecw]

How do swashbuckler style characters work, when deflection is purely gear dependent? Does light armor give that instead of damage resistance or something?

 

 

Strength affects your Health and number of inventory slots.  Constitution affects Stamina.  Dexterity affects Accuracy.  Perception affects Critical Damage.  Intellect affects Damage and Healing.  Resolve affects Durations and AoE size.  We may slightly shift these, but this is what we will be working with in the foreseeable future.

 

Each defense (other than Deflection) is equally influenced by two stats.  Aside from level, the attributes that contribute to each defense are the primary determining factors of that defense.  Class (now) rarely has a large influence on a character's defenses.

 

Fortitude - Strength and Constitution

Reflexes - Dexterity and Perception

Willpower - Intellect and Resolve

 

Deflection is the exception to this.  While Fort/Ref/Will share roughly equal time in defending characters, Deflection is the most commonly-attacked defense.  It is not influenced by any attribute and is mostly determined by level and class.  Characters like fighters and paladins have great base Deflection.  Characters like priests and wizards do not.

 

swashbuckler would get deflection mainly from class and level.

 

 

i think the issue is that when you look at the effects that the stats do, you can shift around some stuff, but health really doesn't fit with stuff that should have other stuff more so than health.  if we move 'damage and healing' from intellect, and move it to strength, then we move 'health and inventory slots' to intellect and it is not very intuitive for health to be with intellect, in fact strength kinda makes sense.  intellect kinda makes sense with damage (damage is mostly derived from skill, which intelligence helps, so it kinda fits).  personally i think the best solution without changing what effects the attributes affect is to move AoE from resolve and move it to strength, then move health to resolve.  that way a dumb brute can cleave better, flail better (whirlwind), bull rush better, etc. which fits, and a dumb strong wizard couldn't focus their spells very well, but can still channel lots of energy.  a good tank would be tough and determined, which fits for a tank.  if you rename intellect to discipline then damage wouldn't be as unintuitive (able to focus ones attacks, no matter what they use, having better discipline to strike well under pressure, etc.).

Edited January 5, 2014 by jamoecw

[Hamenaglar]

 

i think the issue is that when you look at the effects that the stats do, you can shift around some stuff, but health really doesn't fit with stuff that should have other stuff more so than health.  if we move 'damage and healing' from intellect, and move it to strength, then we move 'health and inventory slots' to intellect and it is not very intuitive for health to be with intellect, in fact strength kinda makes sense.  intellect kinda makes sense with damage (damage is mostly derived from skill, which intelligence helps, so it kinda fits).  personally i think the best solution without changing what effects the attributes affect is to move AoE from resolve and move it to strength, then move health to resolve.  that way a dumb brute can cleave better, flail better (whirlwind), bull rush better, etc. which fits, and a dumb strong wizard couldn't focus their spells very well, but can still channel lots of energy.  a good tank would be tough and determined, which fits for a tank.  if you rename intellect to discipline then damage wouldn't be as unintuitive (able to focus ones attacks, no matter what they use, having better discipline to strike well under pressure, etc.).

 

 

Personally, I'd rename stamina to defense points. You are not actually being hit, you are blocking and parrying all the blows, or they are not penetrating your armor. But you are getting more tired or the opponents are finding weakness in your defense etc. So defense would be then a measure of Dexterity and Endurance (replacing Constitution), maybe even resolve. Then we can move health to Endurance. Strength would then modify carry weight and damage (for melee weapons). Intelligence could modify bonus damage for crit chance (or crit multiplier?).

 

However, what I'd like to see is mental stats not providing direct offensive combat benefits for non-magical characters (unless it makes sense - perception for ranged weapons for example). What I'd like to see is provide different options. Intelligent fighter would learn more feats or have more skills. Or some really cool feats might require intelligence (in pathfinder it's expertise, disarm, trip etc.). Maybe he could study enemies and get some benefits (limited buffs and debuffs).

 

For casters intelligence might have different benefits. If this is a really complex spell and I'm not smart enough, then it'll take up two slots instead of one. If this is physically taxing spell and I'm weak then my casting time will be increased etc.

 

The system Josh is proposing seems so gamey and unimaginative. It's apparently about making all builds viable, but I think it misses the very purpose of why people want these different builds. They do not want to play an intelligent fighter because it's viable. They want to play it because it should play in a very different way.

 

And just as a note. One of the biggest complaints about fighters in pathfinder is that they suck out of combat. Yet all those complainers dump their intelligence and charisma. The problem is that benefits of having very high strength clearly outweigh the benefits of intelligence for fighters (combat maneuvers tend to suck at higher levels and it all becomes about dps), not that INT isn't useful.

 

In Fallout 2, doctor was very useful skill for combat oriented characters, because with a good doctor skill you could learn about implants and have them wired to yourself. That was cool.

 

Sorry about ranting.

[Mor]

I am curious if we got any new info on how Constitution affects Stamina or Perception effects Critical Damage? (sorry I haven't followed the forum very closely)

 

Because as far as I know Stamina suppose to have the same amount of points as Health, and during combat only Warrior class can regenerate it and everyone can use abilities to replenishing stamina I think it is in "healing" domain(Int). So if it doesn't effect quantity, or effect combat, what it does?

 

and how Perception Critical Damage bonus works? does it increase your critical strike damage multiplier(stated 150%) or anything else e.g. maybe it also effects the attack resolution shift factor giving you more change to score critical hits?

Edited January 5, 2014 by Mor

[Adhin]

Nah health and stamina aren't supposed to always be the same. It maybe at base, it maybe based off class, and attributes (and maybe talents or whatever) could effect that balance further. Few of there examples actually involved a mild disparity in max value. Such as 90 health with 105 stamina or the like. Personally im glad they're 'close' but not locked into being identical numbers. It allows you to make someone with great stamina but health ultimately not matching. Like the boxer who doesn't stop till something in his body forcibly gives out and hes can't continue even though he still has the will to fight. To me that's kinda a lower HP total then Stamina total. Could always have the reverse, someone who tires easily but can take a lot of punishment over time.

 

The only thing bonus critical damage could be is effect your multiplier. If they're keeping attributes as a base-10 DnD style with a cap and no major progression past lvl 1 I'd imagine its somewhere around 5% past 10. But we don't know exactly how they're handling stats. Could be more of the 1-10 thing like Fallout, but I'd imagine they're sticking closer to the IE games... but who knows.

 

With ya on wanting more information either way.

[Lephys]

i think the issue is that when you look at the effects that the stats do, you can shift around some stuff, but health really doesn't fit with stuff that should have other stuff more so than health.  if we move 'damage and healing' from intellect, and move it to strength, then we move 'health and inventory slots' to intellect and it is not very intuitive for health to be with intellect, in fact strength kinda makes sense.  intellect kinda makes sense with damage (damage is mostly derived from skill, which intelligence helps, so it kinda fits).  personally i think the best solution without changing what effects the attributes affect is to move AoE from resolve and move it to strength, then move health to resolve.  that way a dumb brute can cleave better, flail better (whirlwind), bull rush better, etc. which fits, and a dumb strong wizard couldn't focus their spells very well, but can still channel lots of energy.  a good tank would be tough and determined, which fits for a tank.  if you rename intellect to discipline then damage wouldn't be as unintuitive (able to focus ones attacks, no matter what they use, having better discipline to strike well under pressure, etc.).

But see, you've already got skills that represent skill, completely separate from stats, and stats (such as, traditionally, Intelligence) that affect those skills. It seems awfully redundant/counter-intuitive for Intelligence to grant you access to more skill points and/or skill bonuses, AND just directly boost your damage (which is supposed to be derived from skill, but is derived from both skill AND raw intelligence?) outright.

 

I at least like where the Resolve thing is going, and that it has an interest in giving Strength some kind of direct effect on a character's offensive capabilities. However, Strength boosting AoE spells is just as strange as Resolve boosting physical whirly attacks (why does my weapon get more reach in a Death Twirl, just because I have oodles of Resolve?). We either have to accept that abstraction one way or the other, OR find a way to eliminate it altogether.

 

Also, if we change Intellect to Discipline, then what represents intellect? "Dumb" people can have oodles of discipline. Maybe Person A reads a book, and understands it all in an hour, while Person B reads that book 3 times before they understand it all. With discipline, they can make up for the fact that they couldn't immediately grasp it all. But, Person A doesn't just learn 17 books worth of information because he understands the book so powerfully.

 

In a way, the rate of comprehension/learning is a larger factor in measures of intelligence than some kind of knowledge cap is. Our brains are capable of storing a ridiculous amount of information. It's mostly a matter of how much we can learn before we grow old and die. Super genius kids tend to figure out stuff that 40-year-old professors have already figured out, oftentimes. It's just that they've figured it out so much more quickly. *shrug*

 

Annnywho. For what it's worth, I think a lot of the simple renames that fix one problem simply boot the representation of an entirely different character aspect right out the window.

 

 

Personally, I'd rename stamina to defense points. You are not actually being hit, you are blocking and parrying all the blows, or they are not penetrating your armor.

I dunno... I mean, you are being hit. You lose Stamina AND Health when you get hit. It's not as it the enemy has to first get through your stamina before they can actually cause permanent damage. So, I'm not sure "defense points" would represent stamina very well.

 

However, what I'd like to see is mental stats not providing direct offensive combat benefits for non-magical characters (unless it makes sense - perception for ranged weapons for example). What I'd like to see is provide different options. Intelligent fighter would learn more feats or have more skills. Or some really cool feats might require intelligence (in pathfinder it's expertise, disarm, trip etc.). Maybe he could study enemies and get some benefits (limited buffs and debuffs).

 

For casters intelligence might have different benefits. If this is a really complex spell and I'm not smart enough, then it'll take up two slots instead of one. If this is physically taxing spell and I'm weak then my casting time will be increased etc.

VERY much a fan of this line of thinking. *thumbs up* ^_^

 

The system Josh is proposing seems so gamey and unimaginative. It's apparently about making all builds viable, but I think it misses the very purpose of why people want these different builds. They do not want to play an intelligent fighter because it's viable. They want to play it because it should play in a very different way.

I wouldn't go that far. It's abstract. Sure, there are other approaches to it, but he's trying to make it intuitive. I don't think he's doing the opposite of what he wants to happen or anything. Just... there's still room for imaginative tweaks to the design, methinks, without it being completely unintuitive or overly complex or anything.

[remiel005]

 

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?

 

 

It seems to me the issue people have with the stats(besides not being str/con/dex/int/wis/cha of many 6 attribute systems) is association with the specific terms.  The change from charisma to resolve seems to be a deliberate attempt to redefine it from a dump stat due to the rebalancing for PoE.  Why not take this a step further and redefine all of the stats to recognizable counterparts(similar to what we're seeing here with power and might)?

 

Strength - physique, power, might, brawn, vigor, vitality

Constitution - durability, endurance, hardiness

Dexterity - cunning, agility

Intell(igence)ect - knowledge, erudition

 

Something like that might allow people to see past the fact that a body builder swinging a giant sword might be slightly more damaging than your average joe(either way it is going to hurt), but if someone is stabbed in the jugular with a pencil it will be all over.  

 

There are several other examples that could capture this concept too.  One of the strongest and fastest people just starting martial arts can very easily be dropped in one move by a 60 year old obese man that has been doing it for 40 years.

[Lephys]

It seems to me the issue people have with the stats(besides not being str/con/dex/int/wis/cha of many 6 attribute systems) is association with the specific terms.  The change from charisma to resolve seems to be a deliberate attempt to redefine it from a dump stat due to the rebalancing for PoE.  Why not take this a step further and redefine all of the stats to recognizable counterparts(similar to what we're seeing here with power and might)?

It's not just a semantics problem. If you rename strength to "Potatoes", and it still actually represents strength, then everything's cool, except it's got a goofy name now. If it represents attack speed, then we have a problem, because... where did strength go? People possess physical might/capability. So, either the entire, lush game world completely ignores that altogether (no strength checks or feats of strength, ever, or effects of strength on the situation at all, including "you can carry more stuff"), or it acknowledges it, whatever you name the stat that makes this acknowledgement/measurement.

 

Something like that might allow people to see past the fact that a body builder swinging a giant sword might be slightly more damaging than your average joe(either way it is going to hurt), but if someone is stabbed in the jugular with a pencil it will be all over.

The problem with this is that it ignores the organization of abstracted, math-based rules/mechanics. Guess what already represents your ability to stab someone in the jugular instead of slapping them on the back with it? Attack resolution... which is affected by... Accuracy! Dexterity being the only stat that directly affects that.

 

So, at the very least, if the reality is that Intellect is allowing you to make jugular strikes, and therefore you're doing +5 damage because of your 20 INT, then that doesn't make much sense. I mean, should we add 5 damage to misses, because your INT somehow adds bonus damage to your base damage "multiplier" (in essence, because it's ALWAYS affected by attack resolution, whether it's X 1, or X .5, or X 2, or X 0) regardless of your attack result?

 

See how little sense that makes? "I'm so smart, I know where to hit you to make the best use of my strikes, so even when I graze -- which already means I didn't hit you where/how I intended to -- I still do it WAY more effectively than anyone else. I fail to hit you properly in an EXTREMELY clever fashion! 8D!"

 

It really doesn't make sense. And I don't mean "that's not realistic." I mean, even put into abstraction, it's contradictory.

 

So, again, you'd think if Intellect was going to affect your damage output, it would do it via altering critical chance/critical damage, etc. That way, Feeble-Genius Gary always aims for better optimal spots on his enemy when swinging his pencil. So that, when he DOES hit them (critical -- the optimal strike), he produces a greater effect than even Dumb-But-Burly Bill does when HE criticals (because he doesn't hit you in as good of a spot, even when he's perfectly precise).

 

Of course, I'm not even sure Strength should just grant you no-matter-what improved damage. Because, again, it depends on other things. As plenty have pointed out, if I hit you with the force of a freight train with my katana, on your plate armor, it's not really going to hurt you any worse. It's probably just going to break the katana, honestly. And maybe you'll fall down, from the sheer force, *shrug*. BUT, if I hit you in the unarmored shoulder joint with, say, my hand axe, if I'm super feeble, it might just hurt really badly. Whereas, If I'm Andre the Giant, your arm's most likely severed. Or, If I hit your plate armor with my mace, and I'm Andre the Giant, your armor's probably much more penetrated by that than if Sam the Sheperd Lad Who Just Happens To Have To Fight To Protect His Homeland hits you with the same weapon.

 

We don't have to scientifically measure that and make sure it's realistic values that are implemented into the game. But, even in abstraction, that relationship exists. Sometimes, it matters how much force/power you're using.

 

Not just that, but even in regard to non-combat stuff, I don't want to see Strength's effects be non-existent in this game. Sure, almost everyone has some form of soul "magic," but, magic or no magic, physics still at least applies, right? I mean, if you want to telekinetically move a sack of grain, that's surely easier than telekinetically moving a castle, right? So, who's to say someone who is non-physically quite powerful can just easily create invisible forces, maintain them, and dexterously/carefully move them about in a delicate fashion to accomplish what they want to accomplish?

 

Anywho, that's getting into some other stuff. The whole "why can't the Wizard just blast the door open so the burly man isn't needed to break it with physical strength?" thing. There are a lot of things that don't just need blasting open. Like carrying heavy loads, or delicately lifting things, etc.

[remiel005]

 

It seems to me the issue people have with the stats(besides not being str/con/dex/int/wis/cha of many 6 attribute systems) is association with the specific terms.  The change from charisma to resolve seems to be a deliberate attempt to redefine it from a dump stat due to the rebalancing for PoE.  Why not take this a step further and redefine all of the stats to recognizable counterparts(similar to what we're seeing here with power and might)?

It's not just a semantics problem. If you rename strength to "Potatoes", and it still actually represents strength, then everything's cool, except it's got a goofy name now. If it represents attack speed, then we have a problem, because... where did strength go? People possess physical might/capability. So, either the entire, lush game world completely ignores that altogether (no strength checks or feats of strength, ever, or effects of strength on the situation at all, including "you can carry more stuff"), or it acknowledges it, whatever you name the stat that makes this acknowledgement/measurement.

 

Something like that might allow people to see past the fact that a body builder swinging a giant sword might be slightly more damaging than your average joe(either way it is going to hurt), but if someone is stabbed in the jugular with a pencil it will be all over.

The problem with this is that it ignores the organization of abstracted, math-based rules/mechanics. Guess what already represents your ability to stab someone in the jugular instead of slapping them on the back with it? Attack resolution... which is affected by... Accuracy! Dexterity being the only stat that directly affects that.

 

So, at the very least, if the reality is that Intellect is allowing you to make jugular strikes, and therefore you're doing +5 damage because of your 20 INT, then that doesn't make much sense. I mean, should we add 5 damage to misses, because your INT somehow adds bonus damage to your base damage "multiplier" (in essence, because it's ALWAYS affected by attack resolution, whether it's X 1, or X .5, or X 2, or X 0) regardless of your attack result?

 

See how little sense that makes? "I'm so smart, I know where to hit you to make the best use of my strikes, so even when I graze -- which already means I didn't hit you where/how I intended to -- I still do it WAY more effectively than anyone else. I fail to hit you properly in an EXTREMELY clever fashion! 8D!"

 

It really doesn't make sense. And I don't mean "that's not realistic." I mean, even put into abstraction, it's contradictory.

 

So, again, you'd think if Intellect was going to affect your damage output, it would do it via altering critical chance/critical damage, etc. That way, Feeble-Genius Gary always aims for better optimal spots on his enemy when swinging his pencil. So that, when he DOES hit them (critical -- the optimal strike), he produces a greater effect than even Dumb-But-Burly Bill does when HE criticals (because he doesn't hit you in as good of a spot, even when he's perfectly precise).

 

Of course, I'm not even sure Strength should just grant you no-matter-what improved damage. Because, again, it depends on other things. As plenty have pointed out, if I hit you with the force of a freight train with my katana, on your plate armor, it's not really going to hurt you any worse. It's probably just going to break the katana, honestly. And maybe you'll fall down, from the sheer force, *shrug*. BUT, if I hit you in the unarmored shoulder joint with, say, my hand axe, if I'm super feeble, it might just hurt really badly. Whereas, If I'm Andre the Giant, your arm's most likely severed. Or, If I hit your plate armor with my mace, and I'm Andre the Giant, your armor's probably much more penetrated by that than if Sam the Sheperd Lad Who Just Happens To Have To Fight To Protect His Homeland hits you with the same weapon.

 

We don't have to scientifically measure that and make sure it's realistic values that are implemented into the game. But, even in abstraction, that relationship exists. Sometimes, it matters how much force/power you're using.

 

Not just that, but even in regard to non-combat stuff, I don't want to see Strength's effects be non-existent in this game. Sure, almost everyone has some form of soul "magic," but, magic or no magic, physics still at least applies, right? I mean, if you want to telekinetically move a sack of grain, that's surely easier than telekinetically moving a castle, right? So, who's to say someone who is non-physically quite powerful can just easily create invisible forces, maintain them, and dexterously/carefully move them about in a delicate fashion to accomplish what they want to accomplish?

 

Anywho, that's getting into some other stuff. The whole "why can't the Wizard just blast the door open so the burly man isn't needed to break it with physical strength?" thing. There are a lot of things that don't just need blasting open. Like carrying heavy loads, or delicately lifting things, etc.

 

What I’m trying to do is find potential solutions based on what was presented.  I can throw out logic problems to developers all day long but it won’t help them find a solution.  With what I have seen on the game mechanics, we’re trying to find problems/solutions from just a small fraction of the complete picture.  So what I’m doing is trying to help solve a thousand piece jigsaw with ten of the pieces in a sense. 

 

With resolve, from my understanding, charisma and wisdom were folded together because charisma is associated with a dump stat and ‘resolve’ makes sense in a game where a soul power is utilized.  So what I’m saying is in order to fit the game mechanics, as they’ve been laid out, that renaming the other stats all together could be a strong consideration.  This would allow the more abstract approach that the developers are taking to the 6 attribute system to be both recognizable and personalized to the game mechanics they have decided on.

 

As for strength being such a strong determinate for damage there are several arguments that could be said against it using physics.  The scheme of realistic physical differences in strength between humans is miniscule.  We have been fed the illusion through tv/movies that because actors look specific ways they can actually complete some of the stunts we see with cleaving people to pieces.

 

The type of weapon and type of armor do make a big difference(which are represented by their own mechanics) that is for sure but placement of the weapon and path of the weapon makes all the difference.  You can look up videos online of the world’s strongest men but you can also look up videos of tiny women breaking through layers of concrete blocks with their fists.  Flip-flop the individuals of the  groups and I don’t think they could do the same thing without training and dedication.

 

Andre the Giant might be stronger in our perspective of strength but a one hundred pound chimpanzee(which is on the small size for them) is still estimated to be considerably stronger than him just because of muscle density and mechanical structuring of our bodies.  A small person and a tall feeble elderly person can swing the exact same two handed sword through the exact same trajectory relative to their size and the tall feeble elderly person will project more force through the sword – not because of strength but simply from the mechanical advantage their longer arms offers them.

 

The reason I fully support intellect (or a variation of the term) being applicable as the sole provider of damage instead of strength in this system is because there are too many ways it could be applied to weapon use(any kind of weapon), tactics, anatomical knowledge of enemies, prediction of enemies tactics, knowledge of armor, understanding.  Outside of a nostalgic view of table top mechanics(which this games seems to use more as inspiration than guidelines) human and demi-human strength is rather insignificant.  So once you start looking at how strength fits not only into the mechanics of humanoids but much larger creatures the level of believable mechanics continue to unravel.

 

If a dragon has scales that are comparable to an alloy that a human’s force could not penetrate using traditional methods then a strength score of 3 or a strength score of 18 doesn’t matter period.  However, the super strong fighter with a 6 intelligence might just keep beating away with his weapon, meanwhile, the semi-strong fighter with a 14 intelligence realizes he can slide his sword between the scales.  Now neither of those fighters matter when it comes to real life physics because the dragon flicks them with one of his talons and the sheer force crushes their armor around their rib cage.

 

In D&D 3.5 a barbarian that starts with 18 strength and takes only strength bonuses by leveling up can rage for somewhere around 32 strength by 20th level.  That value is comparable to the strength of any standard D&D 3.5 dragon of that DC, which are all the sizes of a jet plane.  Playing this way is fun, but the math behind it makes no sense.

Do I think it is more realistic to say strength gives SOME advantage?  Yes.  In PoE strength could look like this: health, carrying capacity and a range of -0.5 to +0.5 bonus damage to melee weapons.  It would be more accurate to real life than in traditional games but seems silly and impractical from a developing point of view.

 

Further, I personally like the current attribute system as I’ve seen it presented.  People can say it is unfair to dump all of your points into intellect and be amazing at damage but that is where the term ‘glass cannon’ comes from and is a perfectly legitimate way to play both table-top and video games; the beauty of it is keeping that character alive through use of the whole party's effort.  What the attribute system is doing is forcing you to take the cursory steps towards flushing out the role of a particular character.  The class and talent system is what will solidify your role.

 

By playing that super strong dumb fighter you’re going to be great at meat shielding still but you’re going to be swinging wildly and hoping you hit something good and that it hurt real bad.  By playing that weak smart fighter you’re going to go for that jugular or carotid.  The dex and per type stats are what’re going to make either one of those philosophies count and your selection of either is going to have to count.  No matter what choices you make it is going to make a difference when it comes time to playing out other aspects of the story than just battle.

[Lephys]

What I’m trying to do is find potential solutions based on what was presented.  I can throw out logic problems to developers all day long but it won’t help them find a solution.

I understand that, and I never said "your ideas regarding naming are STUPID!". I merely emphasized the fact that there are mechanical discrepancies in the official prototype that no amount of naming is going to affect at all. Especially if the mechanical changes made involve re-allocating all the effects produced/represented by the given stats, then definitely renaming becomes an important item. Even if everything were to stay the same, stat names are a valid thing to consider.

 

As for strength being such a strong determinate for damage there are several arguments that could be said against it using physics.  The scheme of realistic physical differences in strength between humans is miniscule.

That's simply not true. You're telling me if you go out and find the weakest adult person in the world, and the strongest adult person in the world, then have each of them throw a 5lb ball as far as they can, there would be an insignificant difference between the measured distances of their throws?

 

I get that part of it is how much or little you build your muscles (working out, etc.). But that doesn't change the fact that one person who works out 3 hours a day and eats a particular diet, and another person who does the same can produce wildly differing muscle masses. If they both worked out none, they'd both still be the same difference apart in terms of physical ability. There's no sense comparing some huge guy who works out all the time to some small guy who never lifts a finger, and then trying to say we can't measure strength. It's an abstraction. Your intelligence changes, too. If you spend all your time studying things and puzzling stuff out, you get practiced at it, and you do it better. Just look at gamers versus non-gamers, and reaction times, etc.

 

The fact that you can train something to improve it does not negate the inherent differences in its original capacity. In the real world, we don't try to measure these things that stats represent, because we don't NEED to. But you can't tell a game "ehh, he's pretty clever," or "that guy's just really strong, even if he doesn't look it." You've gotta give it a number. I don't think "Meh, there are a lot of factors that can affect this; it's pretty complex" is a good reason to just give up on abstracting it for a game. "Better just pretend everyone in the game world's literally the exact same strength." Yeah, because that's so much better than actually representing some level of difference.

 

Also, movies and TV are an extreme, and I never claimed that moderately strong people just go around lopping arms off, and shearing straight through armor, just because they're beefy. JUST because certain things aren't as affected by strength does NOT mean that strength affects nothing. Also keep in mind that all targets in the game will not be armor-clad humanoids. So, "strength doesn't really matter... because armor!" doesn't really work, and "the clever warrior will always do more damage, because he can just slice main arteries and stuff!" doesn't really work, either, because... where the hell is the jugular/artery on a giant spider, or an extra-planar being? I don't think people just magically know that.

 

The type of weapon and type of armor do make a big difference(which are represented by their own mechanics) that is for sure but placement of the weapon and path of the weapon makes all the difference.  You can look up videos online of the world’s strongest men but you can also look up videos of tiny women breaking through layers of concrete blocks with their fists.

You can also look up videos of someone lifting a very heavy object off of someone with their bare hands. Then, you can look up videos of smaller people lifting heavy objects off of people by cleverly using some nearby board or pole as a lever. Did those women just build up so much raw strength that simply striking concrete shatters it? No. Thus, they overcame their shortcoming by making sure they trained to be able to apply their strength as effectively as possible.

 

Let me present an example:

 

If I toss a rock, and hit you in the shoulder, you're probably just going to go "Ow." If I toss a rock and hit you in the eye, that's going to do some damage, right? Just a little, though. But, because the eye's so sensitive, it's going to probably cause you some damage. Does that mean how hard I throw the rock doesn't matter anymore? If I fire the rock out of a slingshot at your eye, it's not going to do THAT much more damage than if I fire it out of a slingshot at your chest?

 

What's the difference between my toss, and a slingshot? That's right... the sheer force of the rock.

 

Andre the Giant might be stronger in our perspective of strength but a one hundred pound chimpanzee(which is on the small size for them) is still estimated to be considerably stronger than him just because of muscle density and mechanical structuring of our bodies.

Once again... nobody said "obviously every inch taller you are, you get 1 more STR." People are strong for various reasons. But, why is the chimp so powerful? Because it's physically strong. That's quite literally my point. Other animals the same size as chimps AREN'T that strong. Even other very similar animals. If Strength didn't matter, then the chimp would be just as effective as anything else that assaulted you with its arms.

 

A small person and a tall feeble elderly person can swing the exact same two handed sword through the exact same trajectory relative to their size and the tall feeble elderly person will project more force through the sword – not because of strength but simply from the mechanical advantage their longer arms offers them.

So, what you're saying is... if you trained a chimp to swing that two-handed sword, it would STILL be outdone by a tall, feeble old man who can barely lift the sword up enough to gently guide its ride on gravity back to the ground? Orrr... would, say, a strong, tall person actually be able to do better with that sword than the tall feeble old man could?

 

You're simply pointing out a separate factor, but then somehow claiming that it negates strength. ALSO, there are plenty of things for strength to affect, in a cRPG, than just swinging a damned sword. For the love of all that is holy, can we actually acknowledge that? I'VE already said, probably several times in this thread alone, that swordplay is LESS influenced by strength. This is precisely why I'm not saying "Hey, instead of Intellect giving you + damage, I think STRENGTH should just give you + damage." I'm saying that strength should affect things, "things" being intelligently decided rather than arbitrarily so.

 

The reason I fully support intellect (or a variation of the term) being applicable as the sole provider of damage instead of strength in this system is because there are too many ways it could be applied to weapon use(any kind of weapon), tactics, anatomical knowledge of enemies, prediction of enemies tactics, knowledge of armor, understanding.  Outside of a nostalgic view of table top mechanics(which this games seems to use more as inspiration than guidelines) human and demi-human strength is rather insignificant.  So once you start looking at how strength fits not only into the mechanics of humanoids but much larger creatures the level of believable mechanics continue to unravel.

 

If a dragon has scales that are comparable to an alloy that a human’s force could not penetrate using traditional methods then a strength score of 3 or a strength score of 18 doesn’t matter period.  However, the super strong fighter with a 6 intelligence might just keep beating away with his weapon, meanwhile, the semi-strong fighter with a 14 intelligence realizes he can slide his sword between the scales.  Now neither of those fighters matter when it comes to real life physics because the dragon flicks them with one of his talons and the sheer force crushes their armor around their rib cage.

You seem to be completely ignoring everything I just said about attack resolution, which already represents whether or not you slide your sword between the dragon's scales, or your blade just glances off the scales altogether.

 

Besides... the player already controls the character, so the intelligent player can say "Hmm, that didn't do any damage, like 7 times in a row... I'd better try something else." So, yes, in a PnP game, that would at least be applicable, because the DM would prevent you from doing something clever if your character was dumb as a brick. However, combat decisions are already overruled in a cRPG.

 

Double-besides, what that would already be represented by, in the current system, is an increased chance to critically hit. Since, against a dragon, a regular sword hit could be a clean hit but still produce no damage, because of the dragon's armor, essentially. Not because you can't land a clean blow on the dragon. Thus, sliding your sword between its scales would be, in essence, a critical hit. Or an armor penetrating hit or something.

 

The problem isn't that Intellect doesn't affect the things you say it does. The problem is that you're thinking of the things it affects, then trying to just decide how to do that mechanically as if none of the other mechanics/systems in the game already exist. I'm just trying to actually take into cosideration those existing mechanics/systems, and apply all the stats in the best manner.

 

In D&D 3.5 a barbarian that starts with 18 strength and takes only strength bonuses by leveling up can rage for somewhere around 32 strength by 20th level.  That value is comparable to the strength of any standard D&D 3.5 dragon of that DC, which are all the sizes of a jet plane.  Playing this way is fun, but the math behind it makes no sense.

I agree, which is why I'm thankful that PoE is in no way required to provide you with regular stat boosts so that you can become as powerful as an earthquake.

 

Do I think it is more realistic to say strength gives SOME advantage?  Yes.  In PoE strength could look like this: health, carrying capacity and a range of -0.5 to +0.5 bonus damage to melee weapons.  It would be more accurate to real life than in traditional games but seems silly and impractical from a developing point of view.

See, I think it'd be best to simply have the stat description state "grants damage bonuses for many melee weapons," then have different weapons have different bonuses. A two-handed war maul? Your whole strength modifier applies. A katana? Maybe your Strength modifier X .2 or something. AND, as I've proposed, you could have greater chances/ability to disarm people or knock them back/down with your attacks, etc. It could even affect something within the engagement system. *shrug*. There's even someone else's proposal that the lass talents sort of branch, with a bunch of them being mostly strength based (maybe with minimum strength requirements?), and others being based on Intellect. That way, if you're smart, you don't just do more sheer damage all the time, but you instead take a lot more feat-type abilities that represent the application of your Intellect to your damage (such as... "Go For The Eyes! -- You've cleverly studied your enemy. For the next 10 seconds, all your strikes will ignore 50% of the enemy's armor.").

 

I mean, really, "damage" in the system is just a representation of how much potential damage you're producing. If a sword "does 10 damage," it's really "produces 10 damage." If you strike something with no armor, using that sword, the result is 10 damage. If you strike something with plate armor, using that sword, the result is probably like 1 damage or something. Or it might even be none. That's what the system is for, though. The armor value/damage threshold is designed to represent the real-world effect of armor in the equation of "how much damage did this action actually cause to my person?"

 

That's pretty much all it is. Add up all the factors, and you get the resulting damage. "Damage" isn't meaningful as anything but a rating of the potential of something. Much like strength. You can swing as hard as you'd like, but that isn't necessarily going to produce the result you want. Doesn't mean you're not still hitting harder. And being intelligent doesn't make everything you do better. It just gives you more options than a less intelligent person. Thus, more class talents (or whatever) for you to choose from.

 

Further, I personally like the current attribute system as I’ve seen it presented.  People can say it is unfair to dump all of your points into intellect and be amazing at damage but that is where the term ‘glass cannon’ comes from and is a perfectly legitimate way to play both table-top and video games;

See, I don't even think that -- that it's unfair to be able to do that. I don't think you should be able to do it with Strength, either. For me, this isn't about build-versus-build viability. This is a separate issue. You can have a system with 2 stats and nothing but viable builds, and that doesn't mean it's the best system just because all available builds are okay. I want a robust stat system. I want you to miss out on something when you dump a stat (which is the point), and I want the various stats to produce various, robust effects to create all the pieces of the pie that is a character.

 

I simply think it's an oversimplification to say "Well, Intellect would allow you to ultimately fight more cleverly... so... INT = damage." Even in D&D, Strength doesn't just give you damage. It gives you a damage modifier... on certain weapons. Then, it lets you do all the other spiffy stuff strength lets you do (lots of non-combat stuff, etc.). It effects things. "I want to grapple and throw this orc." "Okay, roll a Strength check. Oh, you're very strong, instead of feeble? Then, regardless of how smart you are and how cleverly you fight, in this particular example, your strength affects your ability to throw a mass the size and shape of an orc body. Want to punch that body in its orcish plate armor? That's probably not going to end well. But, if you want to THROW that orc, then, assuming you possess the skills necessary to actually grab the orc and be able to throw him without dying first or having him prevent you from doing so, it's basically going to come down to a Strength check.

 

By playing that super strong dumb fighter you’re going to be great at meat shielding still but you’re going to be swinging wildly and hoping you hit something good and that it hurt real bad.  By playing that weak smart fighter you’re going to go for that jugular or carotid.  The dex and per type stats are what’re going to make either one of those philosophies count and your selection of either is going to have to count.  No matter what choices you make it is going to make a difference when it comes time to playing out other aspects of the story than just battle.

I just want to re-iterate that, while someone with, say, 1 Intellect might just flail around, there's a pretty low minimum for comprehending "the neck is a good place to put a sword blade." It's not like the genius fighter knows basic human weaknesses, and the moderately-intelligent fighter is running around striking people with the flat of his blade. Granted, all the other stuff has to play it's part in the results, including Intellect. But, that ALSO means Strength should play its part. No more, no less.

[remiel005]

I don’t take offense to a critique of my perspective I’m just saying that a developer asked a question and I was attempting to provide my take.  I wouldn’t do so on a public forum if I couldn’t take people disagreeing with me.

 

 

 

I’m going under the following assumptions about stats when talking about this.  1: The 6 attribute system is required to reflect the classic games on which this game is based.  2: The stats as they are were divided purely for the sake of balance which was directly stated in an early post by Sawyer on this forum topic. 3: Changing the structuring of these stats puts a serious risk at negatively influencing npc interactions, defenses and exploration choices (maybe talents and skill choices also)

 

What I suppose is instead of people looking at it as abandoning strength is to look at it this way.  What names would you apply to the following stats based on what they do?  Keep in mind they will double for non-combat choices throughout the game and the terms need to be recognizable to players familiar with these types of games:

1 – affects health and number of inv slots

2 –affects stamina

3 – affects accuracy

4 – affects critical damage

5 – affects damage and healing

6 – affects durations and AoE size

 

My answers would probably look like this:

1 – Physique(broad interpretation of someone’s physical stature): affects health and number of inv slots

2 – Endurance(basically stamina but different term to make applicable to strength: affects stamina

3 – Perception (think this or dex could be interchangeable as far as arguments to hitting and accuracy): affects accuracy

4 – Cunning: affects critical damage

5 – Knowledge: affects damage and healing

6 – Resolve (Because I think anything like determination works): affects durations and AoE size

 

There is a point that I had previously overlooked that I think would be important and that is it being inventory slots, not carrying capacity in relation to strength.  I think carrying capacity would serve better to appease opposing points of strength directly influencing combat and not throwing balance - if everyone remembers having Viconia in the party from BG, you had to try to get her a boost to str if you wanted her in melee because she could barely wear her effective armor, shield and weapon, which was very much needed since she couldn’t take hit with low con.  You COULD use spells for her armor but those took up valuable spell slots and the first several rounds of combat (unless of course you pre cast them from knowledge of the coming battle, which I don’t think should ever be assumed in a game).  If there was a somewhat strict weight system that would make someone force armor and weapon choice combos that would be more realistic.  It would mean that you might still have that heavily armored battle mage, but with a strength score that allows him to bear 50 lb plate mail and being able to swing a big sword around.

 

If I am forced to pick one quasi real choice for a stat that affects damage(not to mention healing) it would be one based around knowledge or reasoning skills particularly in the heat of battle.  Renaming it something like tactics would be suitable to fit in all roles of combat, but wouldn’t be as applicable to other roles in the game.  While it could be reasonable to assume someone with a  10 intelligence (average for a human in D&D) would be able to think out an attack(hit the neck) it doesn’t mean they are particularly good at devising a plan on how to create that opening.  It takes some sort of ability to know how a parry and a feint combo would allow for such an opening and then the further stats that would determine whether or not that character could accomplish that

 

I won’t say that strength makes no difference I am simply saying that the numeric values assigned to it in previous games were conceived, not to allow for realistic representation of strength to force, but rather to allow fighter type classes to compete with the potential damage output of other classes – particularly before things like combat maneuvers were allowed.  The real damage values I would say are statistically insignificant if proper use of the weapon is not used.

 

In D&D 3.5 terms a dagger used to slash human flesh does a minimum of 5 damage at 18 strength and a person with average strength does 1.  There is no explanation for this outside of gameplay reasons.  The minor length of a dagger means the force attributed to the tip would be almost identical to the hilt from the energy that is coming from the person and the damage would be the speed and path the dagger has taken before making contact.  In classic gaming terms a brute with a dagger could slash a first level npc’s finger and kill him(especially in glancing terms) and the person with average strength would do what you’d expect from real life with a hit like that. 

 

The actual physics of the weapon would be there as follows.  The force of the dagger would be purely the speed it is traveling which muscles play a roll but more-so the placement of the attackers body.  If there is no exchanging of power from the persons lower body than a weak 100 lb person will easily exceed the transferable force that a 300 body builder would do with just their arm strength.  Placement of the body while taking actions is much less intuitive than it is repetitive motion to establish desired muscle memory.  So the 100 and 300 lb person still only need to provide x amount of force to penetrate the tissue and any additional force just increases the speed at which this occurs.  It is the trajectory of the blade that will determine depth at which it will penetrate the tissue.  If someone swings dagger and manages to cut one it deep due to the path of the dagger and it doesn’t matter if they did it with 18 strength or 10. 

 

An argument could be made that a person doesn’t have the strength to hold the dagger to begin with or the strength to apply the minimum force which are issues entirely separate from even traditional 6 attribute systems.  A person with a 3 str in D&D 3.5 still does the same damage with a dagger as the average person when they both roll a one for weapon damage, due to minimum damage applications.

 

An example you gave was throwing a 5lb ball and having a measurable difference which could be attributed to strength.  I don’t know how familiar you are with the sport of shot put, but the development over the years has been slightly strength improvements but largely form improvements.  That is from people using reasoning or intelligence to determine that a particular path of momentum combined with a mechanically advantageous body position can produce significantly better results than force alone.

 

A sling shot, used when you describe hitting with a rock, still can only use the force put into by a person and transfers that energy entirely depending on the composition of a resistance band and the pegs holding it.  Someone with near animal intelligence (3) should probably not be allowed to even use it, but have been allowed to in previous games through weapon proficiency feats that were class based(not for an logical reason, but game balance).  A person with 6 intelligence might reason how to use it, but if they use a high strength to pull with all their might can actually break it(not to mention how the mechanical setting of your arm and shoulder will directly influence a person’s strength in the draw).  A person with average int (10) can use it and usually gets the correct pull for optimum force but might not have the insight to wait for the right moment to fire it and just let them fly.  The person with the genius type intelligence(16) can get the correct pull every time and is fairly strategic enough to wait for those snap openings.  All of these scenarios could be very well satisfied with the numerical values assigned to individual weapons.  The reverse does cause its own set of issues but only because the person would need to have at least a bare minimum strength to even draw the weapon (I address this further on)

 

Further, if you too forcefully apply elements of realism to abstract representation of hps and stamina then things such as dragons should have huge bonuses that could kill you in one bite or one claw attack based on their strength alone. 

 

You take a chimpanzee (str: 40 {based on the average person being 10 and them being 4x as strong as average person – 23 would be the 3.5 conversion using the lifting capacities} int: 3 {accounting for them having some training beyond higher end animal intellgience) and Andre the giant (str: 17 {based on D&D 3.5 lifting capacities having a 260 lb military press and 520 lb deadlift <though these rules account for movement which you don’t do with  a maxed deadlift that you see in competitions> which is a generous score} int: 11, which is slightly above average) in a room both fully decked out with claymores and full plate armor – who would win(for ease of argument all other stats are the same)?

 

In the abstract mathematical variables Andre could trip and fall on the chimps sword BUT I would say Andre would win the fight the other 95% of the time because he has an understanding of tool use, defense, and where the sharp sides of the weapon are.  The chimp could very well not be even intelligent recognize the sword as a weapon or as a threat and stand there why he is killed.

 

You place your average villager from a fantasy setting who has never used anything but a pitchfork to farm and the same average person who has knowledge of weapons and how they function in the same room with the same armor the more learned individual should win outside of the variable differences in hitting and weapon damage.

You could argue that someone with a degenerative muscular disease that places their strength around 3 couldn’t use a sword or armor (or realistically hold up their own body weight) which I would agree and is where changing the term from strength could allow players to take away their assumptions and assume the lowest value PoE allows assigned is reasonable to still be battle effective( a strength (physique) of 3 no longer being associated with a large mosquito or tarantula as it is in the PHB D&D 3.5, but rather the strength of the feeble scholar who has never lifted more than a scroll his whole lifeand an intelligence (knowledge) of 3 not being that of magical animals that have slightly more than instinctual intelligence but a dumb oaf that speaks poorly and knows how to whack things).   This interpretation better allows us to assume that no allowable stat makes anyone super-human or below reasonable ability to actually quest to begin with. 

 

Planescape used the same terms but didn’t use the same model and fallout even poked fun of exceptionally low stats (even though it is a 1-10 point system) but neither one could claim a great balance either.

 

If we learn more about the existence of weapon proficiencies, base attack bonuses or misc class bonuses(not talent or skill based) that influence combat my opinion might shift, but I don’t see a problem with what I know of the current system. 

[Jobby]

Tried to read all 23 pages but unfortunately the inane physics/biology arguments got the better of me (no offense to anyone it's just a bit of a dry read in one sitting) so apologies if I'm re-hashing previous posts.

I have to admit after a bit of thought I do like Sawyers proposed tenets of character design and agree that there are serious flaws in the D&D system in that many of the attributes have no purpose whatsoever resulting in identical "ideal" builds. I also understand that a reasonable balance would be much easier to achieve if one stat governed damage however I still feel that magical and physical damage are too different to determined by one attribute.

 

My views on the proposed attributes and their effects without (imo) superfluous things such as carry weight:

 

Constitution = health/stamina, (both/or either) again logical, more useful for some classes than others but in no way a dump stat. 

Resolve = duration of effects/(aoe?), great idea, applicable to all classes, perhaps more useful for some than others but regardless it can be utilised by all.

Dexterity = accuracy, once again useful for all and can logically be applied to spellcasters/archers/fighters assuming you still have to hurl that ball of fire/acid/ice after conjuring it.

Perception = critical hit chance, another great idea and can be applied to all classes (again assuming casters need to "aim"), logical and sound in my mind.

 

These are the stats i am happy with (actually delighted with tbh) for the two remaining stats i would personally propose:

 

Intellect = raw magic damage

Strength/Power/Might = raw physical damage

 

Whilst this does create at least one dump stat for pure mages/pure fighters it is still a far more balanced system than D&D whilst remaining fairly logical and allowing for a diverse and distinct number of builds, to add to this, hybrid caster-fighter classes should allow for tactical opportunities that outweigh the negatives of having to split your "raw" damage between two attributes.

 

I add that I have not covered defensive abilities, imo these could be distributed between any of the four attributes i declared myself delighted with without being unreasonable or illogical, a sketchy outline of what i think may work follows:

 

Constitution = health/stamina, nuff said, for balance could also include blunt damage if required to make full plate tanks more durable.

Resolve = sheer force of will to remain standing (stamina damage?)

Dexterity = deflection / AC

Perception = deflection / AC

 

I also have not covered non-combat attribute relevance and I realise that a lack of intellect could make pure fighter builds less diplomatic, in that regard all i can suggest for balancing that would be to consider perception/resolve based dialogue options that may achieve a similar outcome to intellect ones.

 

Finally regarding guns/crossbows.

 

Guns -  "raw" damage output should not be determined by any statistic, they already exist outwith standard weaponry by being able to pierce the arcane veil, if balancing is required dps can be increased through dexterity (re-load / accuracy) and crit hits through perception.

 

Crossbows - awkward bastard of a weapon to logically define, I'm not buying the (imo) weak assumptions of strength having any relevance through a steadier aim I again would propose that damage is defined by the mechanical contraption and dps by the accuracy/critical hits/re-load time.  

 

This may make overall balancing a nightmare but also adds further incentive to not pump strength/intellect to max values, by allowing weak characters to easily utilse weaponry that should not require any degree of strength to use. Perhaps big guns/crossbows could have a strength requirement (with accuracy penalties imposed as opposed to being unusable if the requirement is not met).

 

To summarise my uncharacteristically long post, I agree with the basic principles of what Sawyer has suggested but i do feel certain classes should have to some degree "core attributes" thus differentiating them as people who have chosen their profession (class) based on their natural tendencies/abilties.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Jobby

[Lephys]

In the abstract mathematical variables Andre could trip and fall on the chimps sword BUT I would say Andre would win the fight the other 95% of the time because he has an understanding of tool use, defense, and where the sharp sides of the weapon are.  The chimp could very well not be even intelligent recognize the sword as a weapon or as a threat and stand there why he is killed.

Not to discount all the lovely stuff you're saying for what it is -- I honestly believe it's excellent analysis of a realistic basis from which to make abstract conversions, and the effects of doing so, etc. -- but... the segment above is a good example of how your skirting my point. Which doesn't supercede anything you're saying and render it moot or anything. It's simply a matter of my point not actually being addressed by you, is all.

 

You see, every time you set up an example to support your claim of Strength not really mattering that much, you have one control scenario, then compare it to another scenario in which both Strength and some other factor are different.

 

My point is, quite simply, that Strength affects whatever Strength affects, independently from other factors. What you're arguing against is that other factors often have more of an impact on things than Strength. Yet, Strength still has an impact, which is my point. It is not contradictory to yours.

 

Look... here's a good example: Bows. Different bows have different draws. There's a direct strength requirement there. No amount of Intelligence is going to supercede the Strength requirement of the draw. If you can't draw that bow, you can't draw that bow. Now, that being said, if you CAN draw the bow, then you can still fire it stupidly, or intelligently. Thus, Intelligence still matters in its own way. Speaking of draws, your slingshot example works into this. Obviously, a slingshot isn't going to benefit from a D&D Strength rating of 18.

 

Fists. A big brute guy is going to hit harder than a little skilled guy. What I mean by that is, if he just hits you (devoid of any special usage of martial arts), he's going to hit harder. The little skilled guy can probably match the big brute power-for-effectiveness, but that's the difference. If the big, unskilled brute comes upon a little, unskilled guy, he's going to outdamage him.

 

That is my point. Not that strength matters MORE than Intellect. But just that, Intellect doesn't necessarily matter more than strength.

 

Intellect is its own separate thing. An old, frail wizard might know the best way to whirl around and parry and kill you with a greatsword, but he might also have horrible Dexterity/Agility and be incapable of doing so. OR, even insufficient Strength to hold a sword up long enough/effectively enough to actually reach the point at which he can effectively strike you with it in his super-intelligent manner.

 

Also, another aspect is skill (which I've already mentioned a bunch of times). A genius might comprehend the physics and such behind the effectiveness of swordplay more quickly, but he's still going to lose to someone who's dumber, but has mastered swordplay. Intellect does not supercede all other things. Which is my point. It contributes to the effectiveness of attacks, in a given situation. As does Strength, and Dexterity, and Perception, and skill, etc.

 

So, if you're going to measure Strength by itself, as a stat, then use that measurement in the determinance of things it effects. If in situation A, X Strength ends up producing 20 damage, and in situation B, it ends up producing 10 damage, then so be it. I'm not asking for it to supercede anything else. I'm asking for it to do what it does. And yes, it's a system of abstraction, so it's not going to perfectly match reality. If it did, it wouldn't be abstraction. If they could just program in reality, I'm sure they'd do that. But, I don't think we've quite hit that level of technology yet.

 

As for the naming, I understand you, and don't disagree. However, I'm simply more concerned with what is grouped with what else (as represented by a single stat) than I am with what those groupings are called.

[remiel005]

Tried to read all 23 pages but unfortunately the inane physics/biology arguments got the better of me (no offense to anyone it's just a bit of a dry read in one sitting) so apologies if I'm re-hashing previous posts.

 

I have to admit after a bit of thought I do like Sawyers proposed tenets of character design and agree that there are serious flaws in the D&D system in that many of the attributes have no purpose whatsoever resulting in identical "ideal" builds. I also understand that a reasonable balance would be much easier to achieve if one stat governed damage however I still feel that magical and physical damage are too different to determined by one attribute.

 

My views on the proposed attributes and their effects without (imo) superfluous things such as carry weight:

 

Constitution = health/stamina, (both/or either) again logical, more useful for some classes than others but in no way a dump stat. 

Resolve = duration of effects/(aoe?), great idea, applicable to all classes, perhaps more useful for some than others but regardless it can be utilised by all.

Dexterity = accuracy, once again useful for all and can logically be applied to spellcasters/archers/fighters assuming you still have to hurl that ball of fire/acid/ice after conjuring it.

Perception = critical hit chance, another great idea and can be applied to all classes (again assuming casters need to "aim"), logical and sound in my mind.

 

These are the stats i am happy with (actually delighted with tbh) for the two remaining stats i would personally propose:

 

Intellect = raw magic damage

Strength/Power/Might = raw physical damage

 

Whilst this does create at least one dump stat for pure mages/pure fighters it is still a far more balanced system than D&D whilst remaining fairly logical and allowing for a diverse and distinct number of builds, to add to this, hybrid caster-fighter classes should allow for tactical opportunities that outweigh the negatives of having to split your "raw" damage between two attributes.

 

I add that I have not covered defensive abilities, imo these could be distributed between any of the four attributes i declared myself delighted with without being unreasonable or illogical, a sketchy outline of what i think may work follows:

 

Constitution = health/stamina, nuff said, for balance could also include blunt damage if required to make full plate tanks more durable.

Resolve = sheer force of will to remain standing (stamina damage?)

Dexterity = deflection / AC

Perception = deflection / AC

 

I also have not covered non-combat attribute relevance and I realise that a lack of intellect could make pure fighter builds less diplomatic, in that regard all i can suggest for balancing that would be to consider perception/resolve based dialogue options that may achieve a similar outcome to intellect ones.

 

Finally regarding guns/crossbows.

 

Guns -  "raw" damage output should not be determined by any statistic, they already exist outwith standard weaponry by being able to pierce the arcane veil, if balancing is required dps can be increased through dexterity (re-load / accuracy) and crit hits through perception.

 

Crossbows - awkward bastard of a weapon to logically define, I'm not buying the (imo) weak assumptions of strength having any relevance through a steadier aim I again would propose that damage is defined by the mechanical contraption and dps by the accuracy/critical hits/re-load time.  

 

This may make overall balancing a nightmare but also adds further incentive to not pump strength/intellect to max values, by allowing weak characters to easily utilse weaponry that should not require any degree of strength to use. Perhaps big guns/crossbows could have a strength requirement (with accuracy penalties imposed as opposed to being unusable if the requirement is not met).

 

To summarise my uncharacteristically long post, I agree with the basic principles of what Sawyer has suggested but i do feel certain classes should have to some degree "core attributes" thus differentiating them as people who have chosen their profession (class) based on their natural tendencies/abilties.

 

In this rebalancing scenario, how would you deal with the story interactions?(I think they have a specific name for them, though I can't remember) The party comes across the slippery broken bridge and have the options of swimming across, jumping, using a rope, so on.  If you want an effective wizard they will be forever locked out of certain ways to play the story.  The same could be said of the fighter not being able to solve puzzles.  These could be insignificant choices or very important.

 

How would damage output be handled for hybrid classes?  Our knowledge of those systems is still limited but we know that Ciphers require melee to restore their ability resource.  If this is damage dependent then characters will be forever hampered between having a nuke mind attack once or twice a battle or being able to have a ton of resource available for them to do a lot of fancy weak abilities.

 

If you rebalance perception and resolve to handle the conversation flux, then what would keep those stats in balance with dex and con?

[remiel005]

 

In the abstract mathematical variables Andre could trip and fall on the chimps sword BUT I would say Andre would win the fight the other 95% of the time because he has an understanding of tool use, defense, and where the sharp sides of the weapon are.  The chimp could very well not be even intelligent recognize the sword as a weapon or as a threat and stand there why he is killed.

Not to discount all the lovely stuff you're saying for what it is -- I honestly believe it's excellent analysis of a realistic basis from which to make abstract conversions, and the effects of doing so, etc. -- but... the segment above is a good example of how your skirting my point. Which doesn't supercede anything you're saying and render it moot or anything. It's simply a matter of my point not actually being addressed by you, is all.

 

You see, every time you set up an example to support your claim of Strength not really mattering that much, you have one control scenario, then compare it to another scenario in which both Strength and some other factor are different.

 

My point is, quite simply, that Strength affects whatever Strength affects, independently from other factors. What you're arguing against is that other factors often have more of an impact on things than Strength. Yet, Strength still has an impact, which is my point. It is not contradictory to yours.

 

Look... here's a good example: Bows. Different bows have different draws. There's a direct strength requirement there. No amount of Intelligence is going to supercede the Strength requirement of the draw. If you can't draw that bow, you can't draw that bow. Now, that being said, if you CAN draw the bow, then you can still fire it stupidly, or intelligently. Thus, Intelligence still matters in its own way. Speaking of draws, your slingshot example works into this. Obviously, a slingshot isn't going to benefit from a D&D Strength rating of 18.

 

Fists. A big brute guy is going to hit harder than a little skilled guy. What I mean by that is, if he just hits you (devoid of any special usage of martial arts), he's going to hit harder. The little skilled guy can probably match the big brute power-for-effectiveness, but that's the difference. If the big, unskilled brute comes upon a little, unskilled guy, he's going to outdamage him.

 

That is my point. Not that strength matters MORE than Intellect. But just that, Intellect doesn't necessarily matter more than strength.

 

Intellect is its own separate thing. An old, frail wizard might know the best way to whirl around and parry and kill you with a greatsword, but he might also have horrible Dexterity/Agility and be incapable of doing so. OR, even insufficient Strength to hold a sword up long enough/effectively enough to actually reach the point at which he can effectively strike you with it in his super-intelligent manner.

 

Also, another aspect is skill (which I've already mentioned a bunch of times). A genius might comprehend the physics and such behind the effectiveness of swordplay more quickly, but he's still going to lose to someone who's dumber, but has mastered swordplay. Intellect does not supercede all other things. Which is my point. It contributes to the effectiveness of attacks, in a given situation. As does Strength, and Dexterity, and Perception, and skill, etc.

 

So, if you're going to measure Strength by itself, as a stat, then use that measurement in the determinance of things it effects. If in situation A, X Strength ends up producing 20 damage, and in situation B, it ends up producing 10 damage, then so be it. I'm not asking for it to supercede anything else. I'm asking for it to do what it does. And yes, it's a system of abstraction, so it's not going to perfectly match reality. If it did, it wouldn't be abstraction. If they could just program in reality, I'm sure they'd do that. But, I don't think we've quite hit that level of technology yet.

 

As for the naming, I understand you, and don't disagree. However, I'm simply more concerned with what is grouped with what else (as represented by a single stat) than I am with what those groupings are called.

 

 

I'm not trying to skirt the issue of strength, I just don't see how it could be accurately presented in these games.  If a human gets a +5 strength damage with a sword because it is more realistic than something like a dragon should get +500 from mass alone.  So when you shrink these bonuses down into viable gaming numbers that match a level of realism than strength isn't this end-all melee combat stat that many games present.  If there is an added level of highly complex damage reduction than I could see strength becoming more and more of a factor, but I've not read anything about this game referring to that.

 

To put it simply, without having proficiency, hp/stam, classes, skills, talents, races, story, conversation and experience mechanics laid out in front of me I can't make calls on balanced attribute changes in the game.  What I wonder is this: is it too hard for people to willing suspend their disbelief when the more intelligent-learned-knowledgeable-tacticallysound-howeveryouwannarefertoit fighter is out damaging(though not out living) the strong-burly-brawny-macho-mighty fighter?

[Jobby]

 

In this rebalancing scenario, how would you deal with the story interactions?(I think they have a specific name for them, though I can't remember) The party comes across the slippery broken bridge and have the options of swimming across, jumping, using a rope, so on.  If you want an effective wizard they will be forever locked out of certain ways to play the story.  The same could be said of the fighter not being able to solve puzzles.  These could be insignificant choices or very important.

 

How would damage output be handled for hybrid classes?  Our knowledge of those systems is still limited but we know that Ciphers require melee to restore their ability resource.  If this is damage dependent then characters will be forever hampered between having a nuke mind attack once or twice a battle or being able to have a ton of resource available for them to do a lot of fancy weak abilities.

 

If you rebalance perception and resolve to handle the conversation flux, then what would keep those stats in balance with dex and con?

 

 

To be fair I think you are being a touch argumentative, or haven't read my post fully. I also don't propose that this is the "perfect" method or balance simply a suggestion, regardless I'll try and explain my thoughts:

 

Constitution

Resolve               fairly equal combat relevance for all classes.

Dexterity   

Perception

 

Strength - Geared towards fighters

Intellect - Geared towards casters

 

Surely the vast majority of these "broken bridge" moments can be solved with resolve dexterity and perception which again have relevance for all classes.

 

I don't think Sawyer ever stated that Intellect would be the prime conversational attribute, I was merely commenting that if it was then there could be problems, I don't think that by giving perception, resolve (and perhaps also strength through intimidate) greater uses in conversations you are unbalancing constitution and dexterity. 

 

Given that dexterity essentially affects your Thac0 which was the most important stat in D&D it shouldn't require much balance.

 

Considering constitution defines your health/stamina and possibly blunt damage received that in itself should be reasonable justification not to dump it, especially if casters have opportunities to get into the mix by conjuring weapons.

 

I truly hope that puzzles are not solved by your chars intellect as opposed to the players themselves therefore I don't understand this point, perhaps I misunderstood.

 

Finally regarding Cyphers I do reckon you have a point here but surely some kind of balance can be achieved within the abilities of the character? Or could a particularly weak cypher with high intellect use a crossbow to replenish his special abilities? (not sure if it needs to be melee).

 

Finally a boxing metaphor, a clever boxer can beat a stronger one through counter punches/points/timing however the "raw" damage he inflicts will always be less, critical hits aside (counter punches).

[PrimeJunta]

It's not muscle fiber, it's what you're able to do with it. I'm pretty sure this guy could've put most of us in intensive care even at that point.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q16RBQ3BQIU

He died a week later.

[remiel005]

 

 

 

To be fair I think you are being a touch argumentative, or haven't read my post fully. I also don't propose that this is the "perfect" method or balance simply a suggestion, regardless I'll try and explain my thoughts:

 

Constitution

Resolve               fairly equal combat relevance for all classes.

Dexterity   

Perception

 

Strength - Geared towards fighters

Intellect - Geared towards casters

 

Surely the vast majority of these "broken bridge" moments can be solved with resolve dexterity and perception which again have relevance for all classes.

 

I don't think Sawyer ever stated that Intellect would be the prime conversational attribute, I was merely commenting that if it was then there could be problems, I don't think that by giving perception, resolve (and perhaps also strength through intimidate) greater uses in conversations you are unbalancing constitution and dexterity. 

 

Given that dexterity essentially affects your Thac0 which was the most important stat in D&D it shouldn't require much balance.

 

Considering constitution defines your health/stamina and possibly blunt damage received that in itself should be reasonable justification not to dump it, especially if casters have opportunities to get into the mix by conjuring weapons.

 

I truly hope that puzzles are not solved by your chars intellect as opposed to the players themselves therefore I don't understand this point, perhaps I misunderstood.

 

Finally regarding Cyphers I do reckon you have a point here but surely some kind of balance can be achieved within the abilities of the character? Or could a particularly weak cypher with high intellect use a crossbow to replenish his special abilities? (not sure if it needs to be melee).

 

Finally a boxing metaphor, a clever boxer can beat a stronger one through counter punches/points/timing however the "raw" damage he inflicts will always be less, critical hits aside (counter punches).

 

 

I'm really not trying to be argumentative, just trying to flush out some of these ideas.  To be honest, I glanced through most of the posts after Sawyers to get a general idea of what people were saying before responding to his and have just been defending my stance.  The restructuring to allow for str and int to serve separate roles has been mentioned a few times, but what we can't be certain on is how any changes will affect the game.

 

I fully concede that two people of the exact same height, using the exact skeletal and muscular alignment, at the exact same speed, striking the exact same area will result in the more muscular person delivering more impact to the same surface area.  My argument for intelligence-based damage is this: is it reasonable to assume that an incredibly stupid person and an incredibly smart person(with the same experience and other attributes) to provide the same quality of physical attacks?  I suggest for gaming purposes that this would be entirely acceptable, especially if it plays into larger mechanics of game balance.

 

The suggestion about puzzles was me trying to think of the story interactions like the broken bridge where intelligence would play a strong role - there have been no specific mentions of this existing that I'm aware of.  I agree that a player should be able to solve large scale puzzles, but to not having intelligence should play into details given to the player about possible resolutions.  I feel like not doing this would be the developers building meta-gaming into the mechanics.

[Lephys]

I'm not trying to skirt the issue of strength, I just don't see how it could be accurately presented in these games.  If a human gets a +5 strength damage with a sword because it is more realistic than something like a dragon should get +500 from mass alone.  So when you shrink these bonuses down into viable gaming numbers that match a level of realism than strength isn't this end-all melee combat stat that many games present.  If there is an added level of highly complex damage reduction than I could see strength becoming more and more of a factor, but I've not read anything about this game referring to that.

So... a dragon's claw-swipe knocks you across the room and deals 50 damage, but that has nothing to do with the dragon's being much more powerful than, say, a bandit, whose attack doesn't knock you across the room and only does 10 damage?

 

Also, for what it's worth, I think a percentage is way more effective as something like a Strength modifier than hard numbers. That's sort of a tertiary point, though.

 

To put it simply, without having proficiency, hp/stam, classes, skills, talents, races, story, conversation and experience mechanics laid out in front of me I can't make calls on balanced attribute changes in the game.  What I wonder is this: is it too hard for people to willing suspend their disbelief when the more intelligent-learned-knowledgeable-tacticallysound-howeveryouwannarefertoit fighter is out damaging(though not out living) the strong-burly-brawny-macho-mighty fighter?

The decision I'm making doesn't need all those specifics laid out in front of me, because it is the nature of the abstracted game mechanics of an RPG ruleset to measure everything separately, then have a constant method of interaction. For example... DnD. Is it a ranged weapon? Then your DEX modifier affects your chance to hit. It doesn't matter if you're a bowmaster, or don't even know what a bow is. If you lack bow proficiency, then your chance to hit with a bow gets your DEX modifier added, then gets your lack-of-proficiency penalty subtracted, resulting in the final number.

 

That's the nature of the system. It still represents everything fine. If your lack of proficiency gives you -4 to hit, and your DEX modifier is +2, then you end up with -2 to hit. So, you still suck compared to someone who's proficient, but that hardly means your DEX isn't affecting anything. If it wasn't, you'd have -4 instead of -2 as a final result.

 

That's what people don't seem to be getting. The abstraction comes from the simplification of a numerical rating for a bunch of more specific factors. The abstraction is that Strength can be simply measured with a number, which is very difficult to do, realistically. Not that Strength doesn't really do anything in real life, but it suddenly does in a video game, because abstraction.

 

And, actually, you CAN measure Strength in real life. People do it all the time. You set up a science experiment, basically, and test force outputs and the like. Sure, it doesn't measure every possible thing you could possibly do that would rely on some aspect of strength, but it works pretty well.

 

I don't know how to say it any more clearly... Strength is strength, devoid of other factors. A weak person can use leverage to accomplish what a strong person can without leverage. But, then, the strong person can accomplish even more if HE uses leverage, than the weaker person. That's how things work. Just because someone with a crossbow and good aim can pierce an armored guy's heart, and a strong person can't punch that same guy's heart through his armor, doesn't mean that Strength doesn't affect anything ever, and all that matters is the proper usage of a crossbow, for example.

 

There are things that Strong people can do that weaker people cannot do. Which is exactly why it tends to get measured as a stat in RPG rulesets. Is it PERFECTLY measured? No. It's abstracted to a single number. Doesn't mean it's pointless.

 

The two options aren't:

 

1)It's pointless, or

2)It always affects everything.

 

 

It's not muscle fiber, it's what you're able to do with it.

As if what you're able to do with muscle fiber is completely standalone? "I've been lying in a hospital bed for 7 years, in a coma, and have suffered muscle atrophy, but I CAN JUMP OVER BUILDINGS, BECAUSE I'M JUST AWESOME!"

 

Nay. It's muscle fiber, AND what you can do with it. Again, I'll say, that's the abstraction of a Strength stat. However, proper pressure-point-striking techniques are not part of your Strength stat. They are measured in RPG systems by skill/feats/abilities and the like. If you can punch someone harder with your 10 mega-badass muscle fibers than someone can with their 20 less-badass muscle fibers, then more power to you. You're stronger than that person. That just means that you can't judge a book by its muscle-fiber count.

 

The Strength stat doesn't care how, exactly, you're able to push that heavy thing. It just cares whether or not you can, using yourself and nothing else.