Attribute theory

[Adhin]

@aluminiumtrioxid: See now I think that's a good list of attribute names that still fits what they're going for. Though I still kind of prefer the term Perception over acuity... mostly cause acuity is really weird to say and look at. But hey whatever the list fits the current wants with names that don't get in the way of that. Hope they look at it and take that specific list to heart when coming up with stuff.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

@aluminiumtrioxid: See now I think that's a good list of attribute names that still fits what they're going for. Though I still kind of prefer the term Perception over acuity... mostly cause acuity is really weird to say and look at. But hey whatever the list fits the current wants with names that don't get in the way of that. Hope they look at it and take that specific list to heart when coming up with stuff.

 

Well, I think there is merit in not quantifying the mental faculties of a given character, and let conditional factors, like lore skills, culture, certain dialogues had/books read determine the dialogue options available, while trusting the player's own intellect to figure out the best option. In this case, having Perception remain Perception would be perfectly okay. But since PoE explicitly has an Intellect attribute, I think it's fair to assume that dialogues were written with this in mind, and it would require an inordinate amount of work to adjust for not having such an attribute anymore.

 

Edit: alternatively, they could go the Dragon Age route, and call it Cunning, which is somewhat less of a mouthful than "Acuity". Other alternatives include the ideal-for-dialogue-applications-but-not-so-much-for-what-it-represents-mechanically "Wit", or same-league-as-Acuity-but-a-different-word "Astuteness".

Edited December 22, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Mor]

@aluminiumtrioxid:

 

1. "I'd prefer if it was a useful ability outside of combat" - Just in case, it should be mention that every attribute already has some use outside of combat in scripted interactions, even though we don't know it atm.

 

2. "Can help in displays of raw physical power, and seduction" - teeing physical power and seduction :/

 

3. "Acuity replaces Per" - I don't think that the physical attributes and mental faculties that allow us to be Perceptive in conversation and combat are the same.

 

4. "Ferocity" - The examples previously mentioning by indra wasn't about Ferocity as much as about some underline pumped kid being cornered, acting out of desperation and ambushing unsuspecting bigger guy. That something everyone has and has much less effect on experienced fighters in real fights, compared to Resolve/willpower to win. Your distinction between Ferocity/Resolve feels like splitting hairs between personality traits not attributes i.e. one is passion, the other is lack of passion, but what if max both?

 

Overall to me your changes come down to:

Body - Strength/charisma

Acuity - Perception/Wits

Ferocity - Resolve/Ferocity

Resolve - Resolve/Composure

Edited December 22, 2013 by Mor

[Caerdon]

 

a big burly man with 4 times the strength will have an impact force ~40% greater than the weaker person, not 4 times.  this is all assuming that all that matters is applied force, not type of muscles being used, or wind resistance, or the fact that as you press the weapon into something the resistance will increase.

 

that last part is pretty important.  a katana deals damage based on the weapon moving through an object (cutting it), the mace by transferring the force of impact (which isn't exactly true).  so if the width katana is double the width of its impact zone (the impact zone is actually far less) that means that the ~40% better impact force translates to ~10% more damage potential (ability to cut) by force alone.  so if a super lightweight katana that takes 6 strength to use is used by an 18 strength character they would get a 10% damage bonus, which is to say it does make a difference, just not a worthwhile one.

 

the mace (assuming transfer of force for damage) distributes its force across the area of the armour.  so ~40% extra force transferred from a 4 square inch area (way oversized) to a 12 square inch area (way undersized), results in a ~1.6% increase in force.  even worth less than the katana.

 

now if one were to be smart and hit say an eye socket, not only is the resistance vastly less than steel, but the organs hit are much more vital than muscle and bone.  thus instead of dealing with a fraction of 1 (100% is 1) for a bonus, you end up with double digit multipliers at the very least.  if you have 4 times the strength i would recommend using a weapon 4 times the weight, sense that will make a bigger difference (but still not nearly the same as hitting good spots).

 

strength as a damage booster is intuitive, but far from realistic.

 

Riiiiiiggghhht.

 

You need more practical experience with swinging a weapon or a tool and less blind faith in your equations. And if you keep throwing numbers at us, at least let us see those equations.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

1. "I'd prefer if it was a useful ability outside of combat" - Just in case, it should be mention that every attribute already has some use outside of combat in scripted interactions, even though we don't know how atm.

 

Yes, it was told. However, they produced concrete examples with every single attribute, except this one, and even after long thinking, I still can't figure out many uses for it. (Well, not with Athletics being its own separate skill.)

 

 

2. "Can help in displays of raw physical power, and seduction" - teeing physical power and seduction :/

 

 

It may sound suprising, but being good looking, and taking care of one's body goes a long way to help you get some action. "Body" isn't Strength; it's "Body". Being closer to the platonic ideal of how a perfectly sculpted body should look like. Strength and physical attractiveness together. I really don't think that seduction is an integral part of the dialogues, so it doesn't really matter what attribute to base on the presumably few cases where our character's attractiveness is called into question - and Strength really needed a buff.

(Also, I imagine it more of a swiss army knife ability - physical attractiveness is universal across the board, but with the actual individual, you can compensate for its lack by being generally witty [Acuity], or passionate [Ferocity], or regal [Composure]).

 

 

3. "Acuity replaces Per" - I don't think that the physical attributes and mental faculties that allow us to be Perceptive in conversation and combat are the same.

 

 

As I've stated earlier, it's very hard to be "perceptive" in combat. "Acuity" as something that gives you a bonus to critical damage may mean that you know where to hit, or whatever. Wasn't there a significant push earlier for Intellect to give more critical damage/chance instead of providing flat damage/healing bonus?

 

 

4. "Ferocity" - The examples previously mentioning by indra wasn't about Ferocity as much as about some underline pumped kid being cornered and acting out of desperation to ambush unsuspecting bigger guy. That something everyone has and has much less effect on experienced fighters in real fights, compared to Resolve/willpower to win. With Ferocity/Resolve it feels like you splitting hairs between personality traits not attributes i.e. one passion, the other lack of passion, what if max both?

 

 

The "intent to kill" and the "ability to go on after a few hits" are two different things. Yeah, willpower (and a ****load of practice) wins you fights, but I've met people who had some significant staying power but none of the outright cruelty that marks a really scary fighter, and vice versa, some people who had it in them to do literally anything to win, but went down like a chump with a few good hits. I think these are different kinds of willpower.

If you max out both, you're a very driven person who's exceedingly disciplined. If you have both Ferocity and Body low, but Composure high, you're the typical "cold fish" who makes people uncomfortable. If you have a high Ferocity and a low Composure, you're a ticking time bomb who can get into a frothing rage at a moment's notice. Etc etc.

 

Clarification: Composure isn't about not feeling stuff, it's about having those feelings under control.

 

 

Overall to me your changes come down to:

Body - Strength/charisma

Acuity - Perception/Wits

Ferocity - Resolve/Ferocity

Resolve - Resolve/Composure

 

 

That's kind of the gist of it, yeah. Although I'd lump a bit of charisma with Ferocity, too. As I've stated earlier, I was perfectly happy with the basics of the system proposed by Sawyer, only the naming was a bit off. Others had great ideas for solving the naming problems, but these usually had nothing to do with the former out-of-combat applications of a given attribute. I've just lumped these together in a form that could simultaneously have the attribute names better correspond to their mechanical effects, yet keep the noncombat functionality across the board, too.

Edited December 22, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Adhin]

Yeah in the end it doesn't matter to me to much but I definitely don't want anything related with the brain having to do with damage output. And not because you can't make up a reason for why that would make sense but ultimately it kinda kills RP options. Balance being the only driving force behind 'why' attributes are the way they are is the same reason Dragon Age 2 cut there attributes down to 4 and why 'Attack' is there damage stat for 'everyone'. It's also what leads attribute to being mostly pointless and generally lacks any RP behind them.

 

Basically, you can't make a 'brute' character if the only way you can do more dmg with attributes is by having a bigger brain. Now... Ferocity. That I can use for anyone and make it work. Body is definitely a little weird sounding even if it makes sense. I mean you got all these more interesting words for everything else then..  body. It's kinda like putting katchup on real fancy food (which I would do... given I even liked the fancy food and it went...blarge losing where im going with that).

 

Aaanyway I still think its the best list, maybe with a bit more tweaking on the naming side but all the right themes are there and they don't get in the way of each other. I could make a Brawler type with Body Endurance and some Ferocity as my previous example. And ultimately that's whats important to me. If you can't make a wide variety of character types and have them make sense with in the attribute system somethings wrong.

[Gfted1]

Why isnt there a "soul" attribute? Or is there? Would have blended nicely with the setting. Maybe could have been used to govern spell damage / healing.

[Lephys]

I actually thiink your problem IS with nomenclature and you don't realize it. You have a problem with the words "Strength" and "Intellect." and not so much with the attributes. What if they are both renamed? Strength implies physical power, or power in general, while intellect implies knowledge, the ability to learn, and mental capacity.

Negatory, unfortunately. Well... allow me to rephrase that:

 

"The" problem I have is with what is represented, and what isn't. A tertiary problem might be with the naming, after all's said and done.

 

I think what Ganrich said about the names kinda almost hits it... with his example of what happens when you rename "Intellect" to "Ferocity." If you're waltzing about through the game, and there's some kind of intelligence/mental-aptitude check, and it checks Ferocity, then that doesn't really make any sense anymore. Also, NOTE: The "sense" I'm worried about is not perfect simulation sense. It's more like system integrity sense.

 

But, yeah... the problem I have isn't with power being called "Intellect." It's with Intellect still actually representing Intellect. I've already said this, but it makes perfect sense that someone with great Intellect would more effectively deal damage in combat, in some fashion. But, abstracted or not, Intellect isn't going to boost your damage across the board while Strength does nothing.

 

Something else I'd just like to emphasize is the fact that "strength" doesn't mean "bicep size." Bruce Lee was very small, but he was stronger than many a larger man. However, he didn't just have magical strength powers. His strength was still derived from his honed body and muscle fibers and control of those muscle fibers. Anywho, it's abstracted in an RPG, as with all other things. Someone said "maybe it should be a skill, because you can gain it or lose it over time." And, that's very true, but, ideally, that would be an ASPECT of Strength. I've known several people who've taken it upon themselves to go to the gym on a very regular basis, and specifically adjust their diet for the purposes of bulking up and building muscle, and they just still can only get so big. While they could become very, very strong relative to their limit, their limit is different from someone else's limit.

 

Anywho... "Strength" isn't just one thing (size/muscle mass). But, RPG strength is an abstraction of the things that make up strength. Also, stats, by their very nature, are a measure of your character's essential being. That's why "Intelligence" doesn't measure how many books you've read, or how much stuff you know (governed by skills). It simply governs how readily you can figure something out and/or obtain more knowledge or derive it from your existing knowledge. Charisma isn't a measure of how many friends you have. It's a measure of your ability to influence people's reactions to you. Constitution isn't a measure of how many vaccines you've gotten. It's a measure of your innate ability to shrug off stuff that other people would fall weak from, etc.

 

So, my issue is with what's being represented versus what conflicts with that. Not what it's called. And if they're not representing physical power/capability, then so be it. In that case (here's where that tertiary comes in), don't call it Strength.

 

And, for the last time, this is not about Strength and Intellect duking it out for the role of global damage bonus, so, no, the naming is not the issue there. I've specifically stated about a hundred times now that my ideal situation would have Strength do its part (affecting something like Force, which would only apply to certain weapons/actions/checks, etc.), and Intellect do ITS part (affecting things like critical chance range or something of that nature).

 

I know there are a lot of posts popping up rapidly in this thread, but, seriously... I don't type just to see my own text, here. If you're not going to take the time to read my posts, that's fine (they're long, I know...), but don't arbitrarily guess at what it is my point probably is.

 

twitch muscles don't steady your aim, what steadies your aim is the fact that you don't need to use as much of your muscles to use your weapon.  the more you use your muscles, the more little movements occur in your muscles.  in effect your muscles twitch, which is a function of your twitch muscles.  dexterity covers twitch muscles, but also the control over your muscles via your nervous system, which means being able to draw a better circle (or line), which is still different than holding an object steady.

I really don't think that's what he meant by "twitch muscles." He just meant the muscles that aren't designed for endurance, which is why you have to build up your control over them and strengthen them so they don't get all shaky after you hold a 10lb bucket of water up for 1 minute, etc. That's all. At least, that's what I gathered from it, since he was talking about Dexterity. Whatever the specifics of said muscles, you're very correct that they involve control, and I think that's what all three of us are talking about.

 

a big burly man with 4 times the strength will have an impact force ~40% greater than the weaker person, not 4 times.  this is all assuming that all that matters is applied force, not type of muscles being used, or wind resistance, or the fact that as you press the weapon into something the resistance will increase.

 

that last part is pretty important.  a katana deals damage based on the weapon moving through an object (cutting it), the mace by transferring the force of impact (which isn't exactly true).  so if the width katana is double the width of its impact zone (the impact zone is actually far less) that means that the ~40% better impact force translates to ~10% more damage potential (ability to cut) by force alone.  so if a super lightweight katana that takes 6 strength to use is used by an 18 strength character they would get a 10% damage bonus, which is to say it does make a difference, just not a worthwhile one.

 

the mace (assuming transfer of force for damage) distributes its force across the area of the armour.  so ~40% extra force transferred from a 4 square inch area (way oversized) to a 12 square inch area (way undersized), results in a ~1.6% increase in force.  even worth less than the katana.

 

now if one were to be smart and hit say an eye socket, not only is the resistance vastly less than steel, but the organs hit are much more vital than muscle and bone.  thus instead of dealing with a fraction of 1 (100% is 1) for a bonus, you end up with double digit multipliers at the very least.  if you have 4 times the strength i would recommend using a weapon 4 times the weight, sense that will make a bigger difference (but still not nearly the same as hitting good spots).

 

strength as a damage booster is intuitive, but far from realistic.

I'm not really here to argue the details of simulation. My "4x stronger, 4x more force" example was very generalized. You realize that they've used force measurements to measure the impact of adept martial artists, and the amount of force they can generate is WAYYYYYYY beyond what I can generate, even though I'm a fully grown 6'1" male at 200lbs. So, yeah, I'd wager that, whatever the exact numbers are, they're pretty consistent in the sheer output department. The human body is just a machine made of flesh. If you can double the force of a hydraulic piston, you can double the force of a human arm.

 

Also, you're assuming that extra force with the katana is applied in a chopping fashion ("at" the target), which doesn't have to be the case. If you swung the katana that hard AT someone in armor, it'd just break, probably. OR they'd get knocked to the ground or stagger backwards. The force doesn't just cancel out or evaporate just because the blade can't transfer it directly into a deeper slice. Which is kind of precisely my point. Which is kind of why I didn't stress that you'd generate more resulting damage, but that you'd simply generate more force. Hence, your mace-on-armor example... Armor is going to do what armor is going to do. That's why, in a game, it typically does something like reduces damage. Meaning, your Strength typically makes you do additional damage, and that damage gets reduced by the armor. Not "Well, he's wearing armor, so your Strength literally stops affecting how hard you can hit him." Also, we're not going to be fighting JUST armored humanoids in this entire game, so it's not like an armored person is the only example we need to look at.

[Ganrich]

I understand why Intellect is a point of contention when damage is concerned for melee, but what I don't understand is why people believe they cannot make a damage oriented warrior without a high Intellect.  We don't know the details of the system, and I am going out on a limb and saying that is where the devil lies here.  For one, Intellect in PE is far worse a stat than Strength in D&D because it doesn't boost accuracy or too hit. 

 

I am going to make a few points by using the PE abilities and their boosts but using 3.5 D&D numbers and abilities so it is easy to explain:

 

In D&D a strength of 18 gives +4 to hit, and +4 to damage.  While outside of feats and certain weapons D&D has no way to increase critical range.  You cannot boost an ability like Perception to increase it.  That said, in PE you could forgo Intellect and get high perception with a Warrior, and this would effectively increase your crit chances.  So, a longsword has 1D8 damage and a crit range of 19-20/x2.  This means you have a damage range of 1 to 8, and a 10% chance of criticals that give you 2x damage (2-16 damage on crit).  With Strength at 18 you have a 5-13 damage range and that is 10-23 if you crit.  If you select the Improved Critical (longsword) feat you increase your crit chance by 10% to 20% total.  A character with improved critical can effectively double his critical chance with the feat (or a keen weapon), and then crit on average 1 out of 5 swings. 

 

In PE Intellect increases damage alone, and you have perception increase crit range.  SO, if you forgo Intellect, and spec perception (Using the D&D example of how longsword's stats) you may be able to increase your critical without that feat.  I am going to do some conjecture here.  Let's say that the longsword is 1D8 and has a crit of 20/x2, but each 2 points in Perception (over 10 as the 3.5 D&D norm) you gain 1 increase to crit on a d20.  At 12 perception you have a 19-20, at 14 Perception an 18-20, etc.  Someone specced into Perception all the way to 18 would crit almost 15% more often than the one that specs Intellect for the damage and none into Perception.  Will these numbers equal out in the end?  Doubtful, but you are given the option of a bursty warrior with this build.  A warrior specced into Perception will crit  20% of the time, do 1-8 damage, and x2 on crit (in this example).  A warrior specced into Intellect will do (at 18 Intellect) 5-13 damage, crit 5% of the time, and x2 for crit.  We also don't know if there are feats that increase damage, if there are Strength requirements on heavier weapons that deal more damage (2 handed weapons for instance), how much of a boost to critical range Perception gives, whether other stat requirements could be placed on certain weapons, etc.  For instance, a Strength build, with Perception, could have a Claymore (with a 18 Strength and Perception requirement) that does something like 4D4 damage and has a critical of 20% still.  Thus giving him 4-16 damage, and the increased crit.  Giving him near the damage of a Intellect/Strength build, but with a weapon unavailable to that particular build, and still more critical chance. 

 

SImultaneously, there could be bleeding effects in the game.  If there is then a Warrior could spec into Resolve and increase the duration of the bleeds, and this would give him another form of sustained damage.  While similarly there may be a fair bit of Stuns for warrior types, and once again Resolve would allow the player to spec their melee character to be a stun machine.  Once again, larger weapons like Claymores (or dual wielding weapons) could have an AoE component, and once again Resolve to the rescue. 

 

Then there is accuracy and Dexterity.  I am unsure how Josh's "Graze" system will work with Accuracy.  Will a higher Dexterity increase critical chance based on the way that system works?  Does it just make NPCs you would have trouble hitting easier to hit?  If anyone has more info on this I would like to know, honestly.  Either way, I can't imagine many melee builds would be void of speccing some into Dexterity as it does increase accuracy. 

 

My point is, at present, given what little we know we cannot say that Intellect would definitively give you the best damage oriented Warrior.  All we can do is speculate.  We are definitely jumping the gun based on our understanding of other game's systems and not looking at how things like Gear, the graze system, Perception, Resolve, how weapons stats work, etc may work.  We have little to no knowledge of it.  However, I know we should voice our opinions and ernestly.  Which many are, but I think we also need to see the other things that may occur within the system to alleviate our fears. 

[Mor]

It may sound suprising, but being good looking, and taking care of one's body goes a long way to help you get some action. "Body" isn't Strength; it's "Body". Being closer to the platonic ideal of how a perfectly sculpted body should look like. Strength and physical attractiveness together. I really don't think that seduction is an integral part of the dialogues, so it doesn't really matter what attribute to base on the presumably few cases where our character's attractiveness is called into question - and Strength really needed a buff.

It's not surprising at all, but taking care of one's body isn't the same as raw physical power. According to your system the stronger you are the more attractive your are.. which doesn't sit well with me, sure I find fit people more physically attractive, but down that road you got strongmen which I don't find physically attractive.(I am trying to say its bell curve rather than liner correlation)

 

PR wise what it means that our pack mule would look like Greek god... while our Greek godess are only those who can bench press like a mule :/

 

As I've stated earlier, it's very hard to be "perceptive" in combat. "Acuity" as something that gives you a bonus to critical damage may mean that you know where to hit, or whatever. Wasn't there a significant push earlier for Intellect to give more critical damage/chance instead of providing flat damage/healing bonus?

I agreed with what you said(I said as much before, though not as eloquently), which is why I was surprised that you wanted to lump mental faculties with perception, which I see in the traditional sense as physical attribute i.e. how well you can see\hear\smell and everything else is pattern recognition(just like you read) that allows you to pick on the right spot to hit, or avoid stepping into a trap(in our case skill). Which is not the same as wits or picking on social cues, but if we don't get too anal it might work..

 

so I guess the real reason I wasn't happy about it is that it replaced intelligence with a more limited option RP wise.

 

The "intent to kill" and the "ability to go on after a few hits" are two different things. Yeah, willpower (and a ****load of practice) wins you fights, but I've met people who had some significant staying power but none of the outright cruelty that marks a really scary fighter, and vice versa, some people who had it in them to do literally anything to win, but went down like a chump with a few good hits. I think these are different kinds of willpower.

If you max out both, you're a very driven person who's exceedingly disciplined. If you have both Ferocity and Body low, but Composure high, you're the typical "cold fish" who makes people uncomfortable. If you have a high Ferocity and a low Composure, you're a ticking time bomb who can get into a frothing rage at a moment's notice. Etc etc.

I still think you splitting hairs between personality traits, which can be RP with your character disposition or play style and it doesn't sound counter intuitive that Barbarian use Resolve when Fighters use Ferocity.

 

How about a more neutral name?

 

Yes, it was told. However, they produced concrete examples with every single attribute, except this one, and even after long thinking, I still can't figure out many uses for it. (Well, not with Athletics being its own separate skill.)

Just making sure, also the highlighted part suggest that you are more informed then I am The devs tend to spread around a lot of breadcrumbs across multiple forums/posts/interviews, which is why I generally prefer the wiki, the guys there doing a nice job of keeping it updated. If anyone stumble across something they don't either add it or post in the wiki thread here in general)

[Mor]

Why isnt there a "soul" attribute? Or is there? Would have blended nicely with the setting. Maybe could have been used to govern spell damage / healing.

My thought exactly. Considering that all of our abilities(attack/healing) are soul related, it only makes sense that whatever attribute that tied us to our soul, will improve upon its abilities.

 

It can fit very nicely with Elerond variant.

[Cultist]

The moment I see damage governing attribute I will max it without a second thought. So far I am assured I will have max int char just because I see no alternative yet.

Items? Pfft. I'll most probably stick with one weapon type and will not change it. Crit? I will estimate what will be more profitable - damage or crit and will adjust my build accordingly. But making one attribute to govern all damage is a great way to promote powergaming and is the same as creating 18 str 18 dex 18 con Fighter in Baldur's Gate, or 18 int 18 con 18 dex mage.

[Mor]

Items? Pfft.

Keep inmind that there is no healing, if you dump your health stat, you'll be going to have to run back and forth to rest...

 

I am not certain about Endurance, but landing that damage will be hard unless you can actually hit your target and if I understand correct many classes has powerful abilities which provide critical damage and or AoE abilities which rally on duration, so without Resolve and Perception you'll be limited to standard hack and slash only.

 

Other than that, there always will be min\maxing.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Mor

[Answermancer]

The moment I see damage governing attribute I will max it without a second thought. So far I am assured I will have max int char just because I see no alternative yet.

Items? Pfft. I'll most probably stick with one weapon type and will not change it. Crit? I will estimate what will be more profitable - damage or crit and will adjust my build accordingly. But making one attribute to govern all damage is a great way to promote powergaming and is the same as creating 18 str 18 dex 18 con Fighter in Baldur's Gate, or 18 int 18 con 18 dex mage.

I mean if all you care about is max damage then you can do that, and on normal or lower difficulty it'll probably work fine. If that's what you want then make all your characters with max int, why not. But this will likely be inefficient and ineffective at higher difficulties because your characters will die very easily, their ongoing/DoT effects will be short, they'll rarely if ever crit and might even have trouble hitting (meaning lots of grazes).

 

Again though, if that's what you want then that's great, but if someone else wants to focus other stats, their characters should also work fine in this system, and play very differently, and that's the whole point of this system.

[Cultist]

I mean if all you care about is max damage then you can do that, and on normal or lower difficulty it'll probably work fine. If that's what you want then make all your characters with max int, why not. But this will likely be inefficient and ineffective at higher difficulties because your characters will die very easily, their ongoing/DoT effects will be short, they'll rarely if ever crit and might even have trouble hitting (meaning lots of grazes).

 

Again though, if that's what you want then that's great, but if someone else wants to focus other stats, their characters should also work fine in this system, and play very differently, and that's the whole point of this system.

 

Would you kindly present me a list of how higher difficulties would affect the player. Because I totally missed developers' statement about "your characters will die very easily, their ongoing/DoT effects will be short, they'll rarely if ever crit and might even have trouble hitting (meaning lots of grazes)"

Plus, it is the opposite of what ou say - on easier difficulties I can afford myself to build characters as I wish. On higher diff. I have to squeeze every drop of effectiveness out of them. Make their damage as high as possible.

[Silent Winter]

Would you kindly present me a list of how higher difficulties would affect the player. Because I totally missed developers' statement about "your characters will die very easily, their ongoing/DoT effects will be short, they'll rarely if ever crit and might even have trouble hitting (meaning lots of grazes)"

 

Plus, it is the opposite of what ou say - on easier difficulties I can afford myself to build characters as I wish. On higher diff. I have to squeeze every drop of effectiveness out of them. Make their damage as high as possible.

 

I think it's more that "Intellect" would drive your max possible damage BUT other stats affect your 'to hit' chance (there's only one roll for hit and damge but stats affect the result).  Also, Intellect wouldn't give you high Health/Stamina so you'd need to have other stats higher to take more hits.  Since this is a point-buy system - maxing Intellect might mean you won't have a lot of points left for other key stats.

 

It's no good swinging the bestest sword the hardest if you can't hit often enough or stay in the fight long enough to win.

 

So on lower difficulty it might not matter as much (though it might - don't know yet) but on higher difficulty it would probably be harder if you lacked a good balance.

 

So, your high-INT for everyone might (or might not) play fine, but other builds will be successful and play differently.

 

We need more info to give a good judgement on it though.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I totally missed developers' statement about "your characters will die very easily, their ongoing/DoT effects will be short, they'll rarely if ever crit and might even have trouble hitting (meaning lots of grazes)"

 

 

If you pump all your points into Intellect, you won't have enough for Strength and Constitution (= low Health and Stamina = you die easily), nor for Resolve (=ongoing effects last for a shorter time, also AoEs don't cover as much ground), nor for Dexterity (=lower Accuracy = decreased hit and crit chance).

[Ganrich]

Power gamers will power game regardless of how the ability system is handled. So, if 18 Intellect, 18 Dexterity, and 18 perception maximizes damage then power gamers will select those for their fighter. This system has the potential to allow for build versatility for others though. We would have a tough time of it making a system where power gamers wouldn't do their thing, and I see little benefit it trying.

[Cultist]

 

I totally missed developers' statement about "your characters will die very easily, their ongoing/DoT effects will be short, they'll rarely if ever crit and might even have trouble hitting (meaning lots of grazes)"

 

 

If you pump all your points into Intellect, you won't have enough for Strength and Constitution (= low Health and Stamina = you die easily), nor for Resolve (=ongoing effects last for a shorter time, also AoEs don't cover as much ground), nor for Dexterity (=lower Accuracy = decreased hit and crit chance).

 

That is correct...for solo gameing. We have another 5 characters to supplement main char.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

I totally missed developers' statement about "your characters will die very easily, their ongoing/DoT effects will be short, they'll rarely if ever crit and might even have trouble hitting (meaning lots of grazes)"

 

 

If you pump all your points into Intellect, you won't have enough for Strength and Constitution (= low Health and Stamina = you die easily), nor for Resolve (=ongoing effects last for a shorter time, also AoEs don't cover as much ground), nor for Dexterity (=lower Accuracy = decreased hit and crit chance).

 

That is correct...for solo gameing. We have another 5 characters to supplement main char.

 

 

Please, do explain to me how your damage-dealing god (decked out with the bestest gear ever, of course) is going to be useful for the majority of the fight if he's knocked out in the first few seconds. Yes, the priest can probably get you back and heal some stamina, but the more you heal, the more opportunity opens up for the enemies to chip away your Health... and if that hits zero, the results ain't pretty. As for Resolve, yes, that is something you can work around (except for the fact that it affects Psyche defense, and having your extra-uber-OP killing machine turned against you doesn't spell a very long adventuring career for the rest of the party), assuming you don't use anything status effect-related, or AoE attacks. But without Dex, you're basically useless *shrug*.

[Sabotin]

There's nothing wrong with a full damage build. That's kind of the point of Sawyer's design, right, to make a wider selection of characters viable? We won't be able to determine efficiency of it though, until we get our hands on the finished game...

 

Btw, I also like the "ferocity" label, it sounds more offensive for an offensive stat.

[PrimeJunta]

Cultist, do you really think Josh & co aren't capable of balancing the attributes in such a way that there are no obvious dump or pump stats?

 

We've been told what affects what, but we don't know how much, nor what the impact is for practical gameplay. That's the crux of it really.

[Cultist]

I have no idea, we haven't seen final stats yet and even "Int govens all" rule is a subject to change.

[Answermancer]

Would you kindly present me a list of how higher difficulties would affect the player. Because I totally missed developers' statement about "your characters will die very easily, their ongoing/DoT effects will be short, they'll rarely if ever crit and might even have trouble hitting (meaning lots of grazes)"

Plus, it is the opposite of what ou say - on easier difficulties I can afford myself to build characters as I wish. On higher diff. I have to squeeze every drop of effectiveness out of them. Make their damage as high as possible.

Characters will die easily because you'll have no health or stamina. All the other things I mentioned are specifically the effects of the other stats as described by Josh earlier.

 

And yeah, you'll be able to build characters however you want on easier difficulties, but the idea that maxing their damage is squeezing out every drop of effectiveness at higher difficulties is only true if it's hard for characters to die which seems like a flawed assumption. Josh thinks games should be challenging and has said the higher difficulties will feel like all the hardest fights in the IWD games, he also wants the game to be balanced so I have no doubt he will balance health and stamina to be valuable.

[Yonjuro]

<nice examples of different character builds>

 

 

 

 These are great examples.

 

 For people who don't like the attribute system, good feedback for the developers will include a character that you want to play that you can't build with the current attributes. That would be a good bug report,. Developers like good bug reports.

 

 If you do that exercise, one of two things will happen:

 

1. you will find that you can, in fact, build the character you want or something similar enough that you're ok with it

 

2. you find that you can't and so you write a post in big flashing red letters for Mr. Sawyer pointing out how his system doesn't work for you (he can then tell you how to build the character you want with the current system, make a change to the system, or tell you tough luck but look at these 57 other characters that you can build as the consolation prize (or he might ignore you - he's probably pretty busy  ))

 

Really. Try it out. It might work better than you think. If it does what you want but takes an eternity (see what I did there?) to figure it out, that is also good feedback for the developers. 

 

e: for typo

Edited December 23, 2013 by Yonjuro