Attribute theory

[Lephys]

I think a static Health bonus from the stat would be pretty great. And I don't even know that you need to differentiate between classes for per-level gains, really. There are already plenty of differences in the classes and what abilities/passive-ratings they have for things like defenses. I would think an unarmored Fighter with minimum CON shouldn't be able to absorb significantly more axes-to-the-face than an unarmored Wizard with minimum CON, really. The main difference there would be Deflection. The fighter can better handle himself in melee combat, and thus is less likely to be hit, so he would probably last longer. But, if they're just standing there, definitely taking hits (For example... I know you can't just turn off your Deflection), they should probably take about the same amount, both.

 

That's the main problem I had with D&D rules. I don't mind sucking worse at a lot of things than a Fighter does (as a Wizard), but I DO mind the game telling me "You can have 20 CON, but you're still going to have like HALF the hitpoints of a Fighter with even 18 CON of the same level." That doesn't really make much sense. I know it's abstract, but why such a big difference? Does he have that much more blood in his system? 3 extra hearts and lungs, maybe?

 

So, yeah, I mean, you already get an effective difference between classes, what with their various base defense ratings and such, and their class "feats" and abilities and such. So, I definitely wouldn't want to see percentage increases for health/stamina, from CON. Also, all that being said, I don't think BASE HP differences would be problematic at all. Fighter starts with 50, Wizard starts with 40? I'm cool with that. But, there's no reason for the Wizard to gain only 2 per level, and the Fighter gain 4 or 5 per level. He's already gaining plenty of "you can't hit me" and/or "my hitpoints become more effective" abilities and such as he goes, while the Wizard isn't, really (aside from, maybe, temporary shield spells and such?).

 

Just my opinion on that, really.

[Ganrich]

Yeah, I would be fine with starting HP/Stamina being derived from Class and possibly the applicable attribute.  While leveling HP/Stamina is derived solely from the Attribute.  This means that earlier on the Warrior specs (Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, etc) are more hearty than the others, but by end game the difference is much more negligible yet still noticeable. 

 

A warrior class could have say 100hp (80 for class + 20ish for Attribute at level 1) at level 1, while the mage has (30-40 for class and the other 20 from the attribute) 50-60, and by level 20 (with 18 con = 4 hp a level) the warrior has 460 (19 x 4 = 360, and 360 + 100 = 460) while the mage has 410-420.  460 vs 420ish is definitely not insanely noticeable, and it is logical because a Fighter-type would be more trained martially than a mage... so the extra HP makes sense.  It doesn't make sense when the numbers are so insanely different in late game like in D&D.  This is just HP, but stamina could work similarly. 

 

This leaves the early difficulty of Mages intact which many enjoy that aspect of the IE games.  Mages really stink until a few levels into the game, but late game they are amazing.

 

To each their own on Static Health Attribute vs 1 health attribute and 1 stamina attribute.  I would prefer the latter, but it isn't a major issue for me.  I would be fine either way. 

[Adhin]

Yeah I could see health functioning a lot like (health, not stamina) functioning a lot more like how they're doing skill. There's the base value then a class bonus. I could see stamina having a larger disparity between classes, but that could also just be handled the same way. Hell I'd be happy if everyones starting health was the same and just the stamina was the class dependent bonus. I mean say everyone has 50 base, fighter gets +20 stamina, barb gets +30 stamina, everyone gets the same hp/stamina (equal) per lvl and from attribute. Ultimately the Fighter tank being in full plate vs the mage not (in this situation) and having some talents that improve his 'use' of the armor (so having an effective higher DT) would ultimately result in less HP and SP loss.

 

That right there is what you call 'EHP', Effective Health Points, or stamina points in PoE case as well. Now, looking at there current test-screen shot thingy looks like HP/SP is % based. Which ultimately means it's a per-lvl style (least in there GUI test, that was photoshopped I think Sawyer said). I don't think that'll be to big of an issue if they stick with it being % based as long as the base value vs what you gain per lvl isn't to... drastic. Though it would still make Constitution more character level dependent then a base physical trait bonus. Hoping they reconsider that.

 

Oh and another 'fun' example of insanity. In a PW I played in NWN, I had a Barb/Psion (still my favorite char I've played in any RPG to date). That game used 'random' hp rolls, but wouldn't go below half point so it was really a 6-12, instead of a 1-12 (srsly gaining 1 HP on a lvl...just..bleh). Anyway, he had about 800HP I believe, but his 'max potential' was 880. In a rage he would gain an extra 120, putting him at 920. I forget the buff but there was another method to get his con up higher and over 1k total HP with rage going. Now THAT is a massive disparity, going from that lvl 1's 18 hp to 900+ heh. Oh and a base natural 14/- DR with +10/- DR bracers... tanky son of a monkey right there.

[redneckdevil]

Mann ill be honest I'm not to keen on strength governing healing. I'd rather that go with resolve or intelligence. If intelligence can govern how much damage a spell can do, why can't it govern how much healing?

I hope the attributes line up with what they govern and make sense.

[Adhin]

It doesn't govern how much a spell can do. 'Might' increases just how much 'stuff does'. That's just represented as damage and healing total, which... isn't really 'healing'. It's just gaining stamina back mid combat. Your health can't be healed via potions or spells.

 

Also, in DnD, that is to say all the IE games, INT never increased spell damage... of any kind.

[Lephys]

Also, in DnD, that is to say all the IE games, INT never increased spell damage... of any kind.

Which admittedly bypassed an entire dynamic. 8P

 

"Hey, is that a WIZARD?! Maybe we should be careful?!"

 

"Nah, dude... he's only Level 2, so he can't possibly be any more powerful than any other Level 2 Wizard."

 

"Oh, okay, we're safe then... what about that fledgeling Fighter over there who doesn't even know which end of the sword to hold?"

 

"WHAT?! Wait, hang on... OH CRAP, LOOK AT THE SIZE OF HIS ARMS! That guy's WAY scarier than any other Level 1 Fighter I've seen, instead of being completely identical in threatening-ness to all others, like a Wizard!"

 

[Adhin]

Heh well, sort of. INT may not of increased damage but it did this games equivelent of Dexterity, and that lvl 2 wizard... well... yeah ok. Was going to say INT gave 'more spells' but 12 int was +1 T1 spells, and 14 was... still only +1 to T1 spells. think it took 20 before you got a 2nd T2. Maybe it was 18, but yeeeaaah. DC checks are important =P

 

-edit-

Hah I think you actually just brought up the 2nd major issue I had with DnD. Strength. It effects accuracy 'and' damage. 2 factors involving how well you do in melee and it was all stacked on STR. Yeah there was feats, and such, that allowed you to 'swap' that around to dex but I feel like dex should of been the base AB attribute and there should of been other feats that altered that.

 

Then again I think there should be a 'stance' that allows you to apply your constitution to melee damage. But that only makes sense if you count Con as also contributing to someones body mass (which I tend to unless stated otherwise via a description). But that's the kinda thing 'ifs' that can be handled via lvl 1 background/body trait stuff.

 

-edit-s'more-

You know, early lvl DnD - super boring. Guess that's semi-true of most RPG's but that 5-12 sweet spots real good heh.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Adhin

[Lephys]

@Adhin:

 

Yeah, I didn't mean that INT did nothing to support a Wizard's "power," in general. But, I just think damage, as a factor, often gets neglected in RPGs. For example, I personally think it would be awesome to be able to build a Lvl 1 Wizard who deals more damage but has longer cast times (in D&D terms, 2 rounds for 1-round spells), OR a Wizard who deals less damage but casts faster. Not to mention, one who has more spells versus fewer spells as a whole separate factor.

 

The other side note I need to make is that "damage dealt" is often only taken in a single context, rather than looked at as a solitary factor. Things so often get boiled down to "DPS, man! DPS!" But, the distinction between effective DPS and hypothetical DPS is hardly ever made. Thus, instead of sheer "high-DPS" builds often being very ineffective in certain circumstances, the game doesn't really create much of a difference. Which is one reason I like that Obsidian is looking at this project's combat as "tactical combat," rather than just "stats versus stats, abilities versus abilities" etc. 24/7, as both groups just charge each other.

 

So, yeah. I just wanted to comment on that. When I talk about how I would've liked to have seen, specifically, "spell damage" as a factor from some stat in D&D, I literally just mean the damage value of individual spells, and not the automatic applicability of being able to hit things with them on a regular enough basis to generate better effective DPS. Honestly, I think if that effective DPS value doesn't vary pretty greatly from scenario to scenario, the game's suffering from a bit of oversimplicity. As, even fulfilling the same role the whole game through, you shouldn't be able to just "do the same thing" for the entire game, purely because your offensive capabilities negate the need for active efforts. Oftentimes, when an RPG (as of late... an "RPG") says "you must use skill and cleverness to be most effective," all they mean is that you'll need to use abilities in the right order, etc. It's not really tactics, it's just knowledge. "Ohhh, If I use this guy's AoE that lowers their armor, then I use THIS guy's AoE that holds them all in place (root or something), then THIS character's AoE Sword Rain spell, they'll all be stuck there, AND take the most damage, and they'll die!" Well, the passive specs of the abilities just did all the work for you. You didn't maneuver the enemies into a cluster, or cleverly use a variety of tools in order to accomplish a goal. You accomplished a goal that's already accomplished by the sheer design of the abilities. It's not as if they expect you to use an armor-reducing AoE AFTER you do all your heavy damage. Again... oversimplicity.

 

Anywho, I digress. Sorry. Mainly, I just wanted to clarify the "damage" thing. That I wasn't saying "I'd like to be able to build a Wizard who just ambiguously 'does more damage'."

[Ganrich]

Honestly, attributes are my biggest gripe with D&D as a whole. They are all messed up in one way or another.

 

Strength shouldn't cover accuracy with all melee weapons. It makes little sense with rapiers, knives, and a few others. Dexterity should cover this and it should not require a feat. Strength also shouldn't increase damage on those types of weapons nor ranged weapons like bows. Bows have a maximum draw distance and no matter of strength makes them shoot harder. Perhaps a STR requirement to use some bows, but damage shouldn't be increased. IMHO there needs to be less reliance on Strength as "the" physical damage attribute.

 

Dexterity suffers because of the potency of strength, but it also suffers because of how armor is handled. I would have armor give DR instead of extra AC, and have AC more reliant on dexterity. I would still impose penalties for characters with high dexterity in heavier armor, but this would more greatly allow build diversity by letting people make a full avoidance tanker or a mitigation tanker. Thus increasing diversity because (in 3e and 3.5) there is no difference save one character is in heavy armor and the other isn't but has high dexterity.

 

Constitution is ok, but (As we previously discussed) how it, combined with class, gives out health over many levels is pretty broken.

 

Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are just sad IMHO. Intelligence less so because of skill points, and wisdom is ok if you want to be good vs spells. Charisma is solely for RP reasons. These attributes are only necessary as requirements for a class. They should have more of an effect on the game at large. So I agree that in D&D that they should play more of a part in damage for certain abilities or have more generalized benefits like PE is doing.

 

I am using 3e and 3.5 as a reference here. 2nd Edition had similar issues, and they were compounded by how rigid the system was for sure. Particularly how powerful Strength was in 2nd without something like Weapon finesse to make Dexterity viable. I haven't played with 4th, nor have I DMed it. When it came out it didn't sound like anything interesting to me, and there were other good pnp games out that I was interested that I just passed it by.

 

Anyway, this is why I am as talkative about Attributes as I am. I am typically just a forum watcher, but I really want Josh to make all the Attributes useful for every class. I don't want dump stats, and I don't want one attribute to be as powerful as Strength is in D&D. I don't want an attribute as a requirement to play a class just to make said attribute useful(I know this won't happen). I can't stress how much I want Josh to obtain his goals here.

 

It would mean you could have 2 play throughs with the same class and they would potentially play fairly different because of how the Attributes are handled. I could make a Paladin that has high might, constitution, with moderate dex and resolve and be a good 1v1 character. OR I could make a Pally that has high constitution, intellect and resolve and be a frontline utility character. This combined with how they are handling feats makes something like multi classing much less necessary simultaneously. Not that having multi classing on top of it wouldn't have been awesome... because it would. This is all in theory of course as the devil is in the details, but I am excited none the less.