Attribute theory

[Caerdon]

Guys, when there is a limited number of uncorrelated attributes, the amount of different character archetypes they can accurately describe and differentiate is equally limited.

 

It doesn't matter how well-designed, logical and intuitive the attribute system is, you can always come up with character archetypes the system can't distinguish between. That was true in D&D. It's true in every RPG. It will be true in Eternity.

 

In other words, the whole discussion on whether you can build this or that type of character in Eternity is rather pointless. There will always be examples that don't fit the system. That can't be avoided.

[curryinahurry]

It's far from pointless.  The whole point behind a role playing game is being able to play a role.  Part of playing a role is to be able to design your character along the lines of how you imagine that character to exist within the world.  If that means following a particular archetype, then you would likely want to see if the game design can accommodate such a thing. If it can't you would likely try to approximate it in some way.  

 

the point here is that a certain attribute (strength) that is traditionally understood as the basis of creating one of the most common, traditional melee characters types no longer supports that build. And there is no other known way (as of now) of approximating it, then you have a fairly major problem.

 

that is a pretty big deal considering how the developers of this game have touted their system as allowing for more viable builds, not fewer. 

 

And BTW, this discussion isn't really about Archetypes for me, its about identifying flaws in the system.  This is a flaw  that can be resolved fairly simply if Obsidian chooses to do so, but I guarantee that if they keep things as they are right now, it will lead to confusion and nerd angst (if not rage) later.

Edited December 26, 2013 by curryinahurry

[Ganrich]

I understand your point as I understand Lephys's, but I don't agree with it. Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I lack understanding or that I miss the point.

 

The main issue many have is Intellect increasing damage while strength does not. Thus that the brute archetype isn't available. Yet it is. It is there plain as day. If you just say "STR doesn't increase damage so the Brute archetype isn't possible" and proceed to ignore the 3 other stats (not including intellect) that are capable of also increasing damage before deciding whether a build of that archetype is possible then I don't think it is myself that is missing the anything. I think many fear this particular issue because it bucks the trend.

 

I imagine a brute as a barbarian type wielding a 2 handed weapon (maybe sword and board or dual wielding) and flailing as hard as possible. When he sees his enemy falter under his advances he takes advantage of openings in their defenses. This would fit into perception as a high crit build. I also imagine the brute as unrelenting in combat... Which fits resolve. His heavy hits may stun the opponent or cut deep into their bodies nipping their arteries and causing bleeding damage. Strength, Con, perception, and resolve are the stats that make up the brute IMHO. This could come in many variations of those stats. Whether strength increases damage or not doesn't mean that I just didn't build the brute archetype (with DPS leanings) with the system. You could also build a dexterous brute as I pointed out previously.

 

Perhaps Strength does allow heavier weapons as well. You are right that we can't be sure.

[Caerdon]

It's far from pointless.  The whole point behind a role playing game is being able to play a role.  Part of playing a role is to be able to design your character along the lines of how you imagine that character to exist within the world.  If that means following a particular archetype, then you would likely want to see if the game design can accommodate such a thing. If it can't you would likely try to approximate it in some way.  

 

the point here is that a certain attribute (strength) that is traditionally understood as the basis of creating one of the most common, traditional melee characters types no longer supports that build. And there is no other known way (as of now) of approximating it, then you have a fairly major problem.

 

But it doesn't matter what the attribute system is, you can always come up with those examples that don't fit the mold. Even examples that are traditional and common. And frankly, even though it was viable in D&D, the example of the Brute is, to me, an example of a bad melee build.

 

that is a pretty big deal considering how the developers of this game have touted their system as allowing for more viable builds, not fewer. 

 

And you combat that claim with one counter-example?

 

If Eternity allows for more viable builds than D&D's attribute system, it's because of better attribute balance (e.g. the lack of dump attributes).

 

And BTW, this discussion isn't really about Archetypes for me, its about identifying flaws in the system.  This is a flaw  that can be resolved fairly simply if Obsidian chooses to do so, but I guarantee that if they keep things as they are right now, it will lead to confusion and nerd angst (if not rage) later.

 

I'm all for indentifying and discussing flaws in the system. It's just that throwing examples of character types that the system cannot handle isn't really a very useful form of doing that in this case, because you can do that regardless of the system.

[Adhin]

@Ganrich: it isn't possible. The brute relies on strength to win. Strength = Damage. Yes you can bring up other stats which may or may not fit some aspect of your 'brute' but if the damage isn't coming from strength then it's just kinda wrong. Basically you can drop strength all together in your 'brute' examples, get the exact same outcome and hes still not a brute. All you kind of did was lose some HP. Heavy HP isn't exactly paramount with the brute though they often go hand in hand. Yes, this is ultimately semantics but that's RP. You maybe ok with your work around but theres a whole lot of us that simply isn't, and wont ever be. And from my perspective, your as wrong as it gets on this but its an opinion so... yeah.

 

To some of the other posts, 3E DnD does a damn good job at letting you do whatever the balls you want. The 6 Attributes fit just about everything I can think of. Most anything else aren't attribute related and are skills/feat/class related. Also to this whole Strength as a skill. It's not a skill. Its a physical trait, which is relatively mailable (to different degrees). Now, a sport, of some kind that 'involves' weight training (bulking up heavily) is a skill, and as such they're closely related but Strength, in and of its self, is 'not' a skill... at all.

[Silent Winter]

Part of the problem, as has been suggested, is that in-combat attributes also affect out-of-combat attributes.  So you can't just ignore high-intellect as being the 'damage' stat when it's also assuming your character has high IQ for dialogue/cut-scenes.  (Which is why I advocate renaming those stats and having strength otherwise represented as above)

I don't know yet how this is handled - will high intellect give you only the clever options to say (and low giving only stupid, a la Arcanum "me want beer") or will it be like PST where you'll get an extra option?  If the latter then the person role-playing the dumb-brute would simply not allow themselves to pick a 'clever' reply.

(Kinda like how I won't let my Paladin be rude and aggressive to the 'helpless villager in need' in BG or how, in a table-top game, you might roll a low INT fighter and then not use your own smarts to give him an edge - you'll roleplay being dumb and act accordingly).

 

Until we play the system, it's hard to say how well it works.  Does Intellect mean IQ or is it more abstract, representing certain mental-physical skills?  I do like the sound of the system though, just not all the names and tie-ins. 

[Silent Winter]

..but Strength, in and of its self, is 'not' a skill... at all.

It needn't be a 'skill' in reality (though its application is) to be taken as a "skill" in PE - it just means that I have mid->high->very high strength without the precise numbers of 3-18 (and available strength can vary depending on your current mood/lunch/concentration in its effectiveness so tight precision isn't necessary IMO).  You could even make it a skill you can only take at L1 (since the game probably won't be long enough in time for you to get *that* much stronger)

 

The suggestion for moving it to a 'skill' is born out of the attribute 'Strength' not doing what we are accustomed to from previous RPGs, and so would be better off being renamed.  'Strength' (the skill) could then be checked in out-of-combat situations (along with 'Intelligence' as a skill) instead of the attribute.

 

Not perfect...but what is?

 

I think not having 'strength' as the primary damage attribute is actually a good idea - for reasons previously mentioned, it's not brute strength that's more important.  The problem is that strength does contribute to damage (melee anyway)(2 equally skilled warriors could be differentiated by raw strength) so when it's available as an attribute, we expect it to do that as well as increase carrying capacity.

[Adhin]

Yeah I agree for the most part Silent Winter.

 

Was thinking on what I said about DnD 3E being a good representation for attributes and allowing you to create almost anything you want out of that. Was trying to think of 'attributes' I felt it maybe missing and was thinking Perception and Luck but quickly thought otherwise and since Perception was mentioned as a likely stat figured I'd mention why. Simply put I don't think Perception is something that fits as an attribute and is better suited as an array of skills (like it is in DnD). I mean some people are born with better then average vision, some far sided, some have horrible near sided vision. But it's not really something you can work on like your physical body so much. If you got garbage eye sight you... will pretty much always have garbage eye sight. In fact, your eyes will almost certainly get worse and worse as you age requiring thicker glasses to compensate.

 

Sure with current laser technology we can fix a good number of cases with corrective surgery but that's not really likely to be a thing in PoE. Ears are largely the same way, sense of smell, taste. These are things that tend to be 'as is' but are related to certain skills people can work on to improve there ability to, more or less, pay attention better to said senses. Why a skill to listen, or spot hidden people, or traps makes more sense then some universal 'attribute' that just kind of means all of it.

 

As for luck, lucks an unmeasurable 'thing' that no ones capable of working on. Luck, along with many other things often associated with 'perception' I feel are better as starter traits, background things that give a base of who your character is/was and how they got there. Such as being far or near sided. It's stuff we're ultimately born with. Just another 2 cents thrown into this pile we got going.

[Ganrich]

@Ganrich: it isn't possible. The brute relies on strength to win. Strength = Damage. Yes you can bring up other stats which may or may not fit some aspect of your 'brute' but if the damage isn't coming from strength then it's just kinda wrong. Basically you can drop strength all together in your 'brute' examples, get the exact same outcome and hes still not a brute. All you kind of did was lose some HP. Heavy HP isn't exactly paramount with the brute though they often go hand in hand. Yes, this is ultimately semantics but that's RP. You maybe ok with your work around but theres a whole lot of us that simply isn't, and wont ever be. And from my perspective, your as wrong as it gets on this but its an opinion so... yeah.

 

To some of the other posts, 3E DnD does a damn good job at letting you do whatever the balls you want. The 6 Attributes fit just about everything I can think of. Most anything else aren't attribute related and are skills/feat/class related. Also to this whole Strength as a skill. It's not a skill. Its a physical trait, which is relatively mailable (to different degrees). Now, a sport, of some kind that 'involves' weight training (bulking up heavily) is a skill, and as such they're closely related but Strength, in and of its self, is 'not' a skill... at all.

It comes down to damage not coming from strength, and that is bucking a trend. Using 3E as a jumping point: build me a fighter with maximum damage in melee with no points in strength. This is basically what you want from PE in reverse. Anyone can tear an attribute system down by saying build me a character that has X capabilities without having any points in Y attribute when X is derived by Y in the attribute system. Build me a sorcerer that can cast his high level sorcerer spells in 3E that isn't charismatic. Build me a stupid wizard. They aren't possible in 3E unless you are planning a multi-class build that doesn't require high level spells. If you do make them then they will be useless characters. So here we are with "Build me a Brute with maximum damage that comes from strength." It is intentionally setting up this system to fail without using the other attributes to round the character.

 

On the note of feats/skills/etc: we don't know anything about them in PE, and they could very well play a big role here as well.

 

I don't consider my example a work around as it uses the available attribute system to build the archetype in question. That was the point of the example. The issue is just that strength doesn't make the character hit harder. By intentionally asking for a "brute that has strength increase his damage" you are basically requiring a "work around" in order to get any answer.

[curryinahurry]

 

 

But it doesn't matter what the attribute system is, you can always come up with those examples that don't fit the mold. Even examples that are traditional and common. And frankly, even though it was viable in D&D, the example of the Brute is, to me, an example of a bad melee build.

 

And you combat that claim with one counter-example?

 

If Eternity allows for more viable builds than D&D's attribute system, it's because of better attribute balance (e.g. the lack of dump attributes).

 

 

I'm all for indentifying and discussing flaws in the system. It's just that throwing examples of character types that the system cannot handle isn't really a very useful form of doing that in this case, because you can do that regardless of the system.

 

 

The one Counter example is a very basic melee type that many will want to play.  It's not some obscure niche character type.

 

As to you're last point; that is pretty much how critiqueing a system works.  You test the system for what is possible and what is not.  Lephys was asked to produce an example of a build that wasn't possible in the system, he responded with a very common build type. And no one has been able to counter his contention.  

 

Yes, anything designed will have its weak spots, that is why it is important to differentiate between the mundane and the exotic.  The Brute is far from an exotic build.  I don't know how to make it more clear than that.

 

@ Adhin

 

Since Obsidian is going for a "Game-ist" system, I'm not particularly worried about the differentiation of Attributes from Abilities from Skills as long as there is a logic and players can model the character they are trying to role-play.  

Edited December 26, 2013 by curryinahurry

[Adhin]

I still consider it one. Saying build a stupid 'wizard' when a Wizards life revolves around READING and learning is more setting up a scenario for failure then anything else. The Brute requiring damage from strength to 'work' is playing 'to' what the brute is. Making a mentally retarded wizard is playing against what a wizard is. Same with Cha on a Sorcerer, it's how the class functions. Working directly 'against' that is something you can go ahead and try to do but they're separate things.

 

As an example one could make a brutish Sorcerer in DnD by giving him a good bit of strength and having him carry a club around. Doesn't mean he'd be as efficient as a fighter but a Brutes a brute, its not a class its an attribute allocation thing. Granted most are fighter or fighter types but that's just the common route. As far as making a Fighter type max dmg potential with out strength there are feats and PrC's that allow you to use other stats to gain the damage you would of gotten from strength. Dualist I believe uses INT for dmg as a straight bonus. Meaning it'll work hand in hand 'with' your strength but wouldn't require you maximize strength to get your damage boost.

 

Yes that's an additional class but that's kind of the point I've been trying to make. A Brute is a strength dependent character (for damage). You can have a smart brute, or a dexterous brute, but you can't have a low STR brute. It's what makes them a brute in the first place (that and how they handle situations). It has little to do with your class, though people tend to use specific classes for obvious reasons. Anything related to feats or feat-like-abilities PoE (talents or whatever) would be 'training'. It would make more sense for there to be a talent or feat or whatever that gives a damage bonus based off INT to allow for a more dualist style fighter then the other way around.

 

...seriously a stupid wizard? They 'have' to be able to read in the first place to even use spells. That has to be one of the worst examples I've seen in attempting to make a point.

 

-edit-

@Curry: Yeah I mostly agree but they're still using a very DnD style structure to it. Attributes and skills are pretty much the same. Only difference, really, is instead of just having 'feats' they have them split up into class specific feats (which I forget what they call, I think 'Abilities') and universal ones which I think they're calling talents. Other then that its a very similar structure and concept for most of them.

 

In either case I agree with the direction there 'wanting' to go, I just think there current allocation is limiting (or the naming is, one or the 2).

Edited December 26, 2013 by Adhin

[curryinahurry]

^  I think its mostly in the naming.  If they want one attribute to control all damage, that is fine.  I think that approach however necessitates a more granular approach to skills and abilities that can allow for players to build characters to their liking conceptually (Brutish Rogue Anti-Hero Paladin, Maniacal Wizard, etc.).  Then attributes can be free to handle more general aspects of player characteristics without doing the double duty we see in DnD (Which Obsidian sees as a problem).

[Adhin]

I agree. Honestly I think my ultimate preferred solution to all this would be the further up proposed attribute layout with body and ferocity (well maybe something other then body... like vitality or... anything besides body). Then, with that more generalized attribute naming not tying it down anymore, have a bunch of out-the-gate background 'traits' (kinda like New Vegas) that allow us to hone these archetypes we keep bitching at each other about.

 

Hell one could just be called Brute, gives bonus to melee damage. Brute background, sizeable points into 'Ferocity'. That'd fit pretty good in my book. I think the New Vegas starter traits (of which you got to pick up to 2 of) I felt really allowed you to color your character in interesting ways that played well with the attributes, you know?

 

-edit-

Oh on a side note, I 100% agree with them on the way DnD handles attributes would be a problem for this game. A lot of that has to do with just how DnD is, you can literally do anything you want in that. I mean theres a near endless supply of PrC and oddball feats that let you... really do just about anything. Put that into a cRPG and your limiting those options considerably by virtue of having a limit on content. Add to that no multi-classing or prestige classes as they're going with and attributes definitely need to be a bit more muddy in concept and function.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Adhin

[Ganrich]

We are talking about an attribute system: not PrCs, not feats, not a build where the sorcerer is a brute. Let's ignore the sorc and wizard for the moment then. I was over-exaggerating to make a point anyway. I want maximum damage in 3E on a dex/int based melee fighter without max strength. This needs to happen via the attribute system. No feats allowed. We don't know what feats are in PE so we have to keep a level playing field.

 

On the note of the sorcerer and wizard though... In D&D you are right those classes are designed to work with charisma and intelligence. However, in PE at the moment there is a way to increase damage in melee without intellect and all classes are designed to work with those attributes. These are the rules of PE as they stand. You asking for a class in PE to get damage from an attribute not designed to give bonus damage is the equivalent of me wanting a Stupid Wizard in 3E D&D. This is regardless of what the stats are called. That was the point I was trying to make. I admit I was heavy handed about it, and didn't explain myself well admittedly. Too much tequila and I am sorry.

 

I am wholeheartedly behind renaming strength to something that doesn't imply increased hit damage though. I still like Body, myself. I still stand by my build ideas as not being work arounds though.

[jamoecw]

well for a dumb brute character, what weapon does he use?

A. a rusty dagger

B. an oversized claymore

 

most likely you imagine him using the bigger heavier weapon, which fits for doing more damage, and it relates to strength.  however in a system that gives a flat bonus to damage based on strength he can use the rusty dagger and end up splitting people in two, which is just plain silly.  i have said it before, i think that a bonus to strength should come from being able to use more damaging weapons.  the fact that intellect boosts damage regardless of your weapon makes sense, that dexterity makes you more accurate, and con makes you able to take more before going down also make perfect sense.  i am not so sure about the others, but they do decentralize stats and make it so that you don't have single attribute super characters, so it seems good.

 

strength being tied to health seems odd, but okay, and having more carrying capacity seems logical.  i could see health getting moved to resolve and AoE moved to strength, with more damaging weapons needing more strength, or reducing attack speed penalties from encumbrance.  that way strength isn't directly tied to damage, but indirectly, and a non magical bruiser wouldn't use much in the way of AoE (unless he is trying to plow through people or something like that), so he would gain damage from using heavy weapons (or using weapons better while in heavy armor).  i don't see archetypes with loads of AoE gaining their damage from their weapons, so it would fit well i think without overloading a single stat.

 

as sawyer said that str requirements on weapons are tough to balance, having str mitigate armor encumbrance could be done by a percentage:

armour attack delay penalty/(str/2 rounded up)

full plate - +100% attack delay

chain shirt - +40% attack delay

dagger - attack delay of 1

2 handed maul - attack delay of 10

full plate with dagger and 1 str = attack delay of 2

full plate with dagger and 10 str = attack delay of 1.2

full plate with dagger and 18 str = attack delay of 1.1

full plate with 2 handed maul and 1 str = attack delay of 20

full plate with 2 handed maul and 10 str = attack delay of 12

full plate with 2 handed maul and 18 str = attack delay of 11.1

chain shirt with dagger and 1 str = attack delay of 1.4

chain shirt with dagger and 18 str = attack delay of 1.0

chain shirt with 2 handed maul and 1 str = attack delay of 14

chain shirt with 2 handed maul and 18 str = attack delay of 10.4

 

if we assume that the avg damage of the maul is 10 times the dagger, then the avg dps for the maul exceeds the dagger if one dumps strength, even when wearing somewhat light armor.  the numbers and formula can be played with, but you see my point (hopefully).

Edited December 26, 2013 by jamoecw

[Adhin]

Except, yet again, im not talking about classes. And yeah in relation to DnD im going to point out feats that alter things because 'that's what there attribute system is designed around. Yes I realize PoE isn't, or most likely doesn't want to be and wants there attributes to be more free form. Again, not talking about classes but a basic archetype that can be applied to any class. If strength exists, and it has no effect on melee combat its just going to be weird. If INT is the sole source of damage for melee (outside of talents) thats... also weird.

 

It works in DnD cause its governed by attribute based off the source not just a single one doing it all. I get PoE isn't going to do that, and I think that's where the problem is, though I don't think that a single stat doing all the dmg for all sources is a bad thing. I just don't think it should be INT, or STR for that matter. All im saying is you can't make a proper Brute with there current direction (or the one they've mentioned considering). And saying 'well you can use other stats that're completely unrelated to it to fake it' doesn't change that.

 

There could easily be a talent that makes STR function as melee dmg on larger weapons that alleviates some of this, but as you said we don't know about any of that, and going at this as attributes and nothing else it doesn't work for me, and a lot of other folks. Can read my above post for what I'd ultimately prefer.

[Ganrich]

I am not, and won't, argue that PE's attribute isn't strange at first glance for many. To some it is strange at every glance. I definitely agree that the effects of some attributes are strange based on the name of that attribute.

 

I still prefer Body to Strength because it doesn't imply damage, it allows busting down doors for out of combat checks, and it could imply a fat bartender and Conan the barbarian. It is a versatile name.

 

I am still not sold on Ferocity as an Intellect replacement, but mostly because that requires moving out of combat checks around to other attributes, and/or changing Perception as well to accommodate the change. In other words, it may be too much work to change without changing everything.

[Silent Winter]

 Quote function not working - quoting Adhin:

Saying build a stupid 'wizard' when a Wizards life revolves around READING and learning is more setting up a scenario for failure then anything else.

Sure - though that's one definition of wizard - another might have learned spells by rote from a master and be only capable of casting a few.  Nonetheless he could be very powerful with those (D&D kinda has this for lower INT wizards - fewer spells per level - but a minimum INT and limited spell level)

 

The Brute requiring damage from strength to 'work' is playing 'to' what the brute is.

Brutes work by hitting hard but with little finesse (and are usually aggressive with no regard for social boundaries) - in a real-world example, that requires high strength, as in D&D.  It's certainly how a brute is imagined.  So I agree that it would be strange to have a low-strength, high-perception, 'brute'. 
 

 

Making a mentally retarded wizard is playing against what a wizard is. Same with Cha on a Sorcerer, it's how the class functions.

I always thought 'Charisma' was a poor thing to base a sorcerer's power on.  For me, a 'sorcerer' suggests the power comes from inside like his/her soul or perhaps vitality.  (I know charisma can come from inside but it's more how you speak and present yourself, as well as how you look) It's like they wanted to make it different from a wizard and a cleric (neither requiring study (INT) nor experience/insight (WIS) but were stuck with limited options for the attributes.  So I can't make an slovenly/charmless sorcerer.  That's how it works in D&D.  Though PE is not D&D, it may have similar flaws.

 

I agree that RPing a brute should be possible in PE.  I guess we'll see what the devs reckon when they're back after new year.  It's probably too late to make major changes, but renaming attributes and introducing new skills should be possible.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Silent Winter

[curryinahurry]

@ Ganrich

 

I think Elerond's Acumen/ Acuity are a good alternative to Intellect, they mean similar things but getting Intelligence/Intellect out of the label makes the association with mind less direct (and associated to DnD attribute).  I too don't much care for Ferocity; it's a bit too suggestive (as in everyone playing a barbarian might be inclined to max that stat whether it really fits best for that class or not).

[Adhin]

@Ganrich: That we definitely agree on. I like Ferocity as a attribute but I think the whole list lacks a good mental one for speech checks. I think perception, as I mentioned before, isn't the best name (even though I LIKE the word its self and kinda want it on that virtue alone... but still think it makes a bad attribute). Maybe replacing Perception with a more mental related attribute name would allow for an 'int' replacement with out it being int.

 

In either case, throwing int and str out the window, and coming up with some stuff that works for a vast array of archetype builds, that plays nice with speech checks and the like would be to everyone's benefit. ^.^

 

-edit-

You know, as much as I like the word Ferocity (and think its fits a damage attribute) someone mentioned 'wheres the souls stat'. Maybe along with said Body attribute there should just be a SOUL attribute. Which governs Damage and Healing. I mean the Soul in PoE 'does' kinda govern spells and 'feats of strength', barb rage, all that nonsense.

 

So theres my Vote, swap out Strength with Body (bleeehh) and Throw in a Soul attribute for the dmg/healing. And as awkward as I think acuity is I do agree it makes an ok replacement for INT as far as speech checks are concerned so... yeah. Body, Souls, mind-oriented attribute name. I'd be pretty darn happy with that.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Adhin

[Adhin]

@Silent Winter: I agree on the 'wizard' bit, except that's not how Wizards learn in DnD or in PoE and both require a 'Tome' where they write there spells down (a spell book). They literally have to read and write in there spells language (weather that's native or special like in DnD i Don't know but the point remains). So in another RPG system I can see and agree with but in relation to these 2 it just doesn't fit via the nature of what a "Wizard" means to the worlds.

 

As for Charisma I used to agree, wasn't really sure WHY they would use that for Paladins and Sorcerers or why it was even an attribute, so few years back I decided to look up the word to see if it had some hidden meaning and here's what I got from that.

 

1: Theology . a divinely conferred gift or power.

2. a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people.

 

It literally means a divine gift (or in sorcerer case an inborn gift from magical blood, divine or otherwise) and a spiritual power or personality giving a great force of presence. I was personally shocked to see how perfectly it fit for what they used it for. Find it amusing how many people (including my self for awhile) thought it was just a 'beauty stat'. Which is silly when you really think about it, its not mean to be a beauty stat, you can be a high charisma orc with a burned face and still have massive charisma. Just... something about you, some force of presence.

 

I figure only reason CHA isn't used for Priests as there casting stat is CHA gives 0 insight into anything, which is what Wisdom is meant to signify. Wisdom, unlike int or cha is the characters abilities to simply understand things with out detailed explanation. Ultimately, for DnD, i think it works exceptionally well though many people (including my self for awhile there) just view certain attributes incorrectly to what they're intention is.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Adhin

[IndiraLightfoot]

If we have to change things, I'd prefer this:

 

Body: replaces strength, except it does nothing to intimidation, but represents physical attractiveness, too. Can help in displays of raw physical power, and seduction. This added utility might balance its generally perceived limited usefulness.

Endurance: replaces Con. It can help in the cases where you need to withstand pain, hold your breath for a long time, fight poisons/diseases. I'd prefer if it was a useful ability outside of combat.

Dexterity: no change. Acting quickly and doing thief-y stuff in dialogues.

Acuity: replaces Per. Used both as Perception and Intelligence in dialogues, these are hard to separate anyways (well, to be more accurate, they've always had some overlap, and dialogue application usually depends on both simultaneously - if you're very intelligent, but don't really pay attention to the other person, you can fail just as easily as if you were perceptive, but didn't have the mental faculties to interpret the information correctly).

Ferocity: replaces Int. Represents a will to act, passion, fighting spirit - regardless of whether you're fighting to save someone's life [doctors need to be competitive to 'beat' illnesses, after all], or a more literal fight involving beating the other guy with sharp sticks. Out of combat, it helps in intimidation, and generally you have a raw, magnetic energy around you, which certain people might find attractive/convincing, but others don't really care about it/might even find off-putting. To use a totally bull**** analogue, "being alpha".

Resolve (or perhaps should be renamed to Composure): no change. Out of combat, entails composure, stoicity, strength of will, but not of passion; inner harmony. Charismatic options that lack the dangerous edge that needs to be lumped with Ferocity belong here, as does anything involving keeping a cool head and a straight face (including, but not limited to, lying - although complex lies might require some Acuity to initiate, but if you stumble, and make the other guy suspicious/they were suspicious to begin with, Resolve helps to save your ass).

 

Now that I think about it, I even prefer this to the original. Thanks everybody for their contributions

 

I think Aluminiumtrioxid's brilliant suggestion for an attribute setup actually can accommodate the concerns about Ferocity being too suggestive. It's in his description, even: fighting spirit. Replace Ferocity with Spirit (then you get your Soul too), and this can cover Ferocity (as in Fighting spirit) and Spirit as in the softer side of Intelligence, even Wisdom, certain healing, you can adjust it to whatever checks and needs you crave.

[Adhin]

Not wanting to post spam too much (but failing heh)... I really really want a Spirit or Soul stat. Yeah we have a relatively 'strong' soul, but I'd love an attribute to say just how awesome my soul is.

[curryinahurry]

@ IndiraLightfoot,

 

If ia word like 'Ferocity' needs to be explained in qualifying terms, its probably going to cause problems.  Also, it really doesn't fit into the concept of what the current Intellect stat is describing, which is more a capacity to learn how to do damage than a willingness.

 

I do like Spirit or some variant there of as a possibility 

Edited December 26, 2013 by curryinahurry

[Kveldulf]

 

And that is Josh Sawyer's design goal there - to protect people from themselves (I don't think it's the character system's fault), to remove dump stats, and to allow you to play with any build you would like

 

It's less about protecting people and more about allowing a wider range of viable builds.  Muscle wizards, genius fighters, high willpower rogues, etc.

 

e: I also tend to post a lot on SA because there's one thread for discussing PE so it's very easy to step into a conversation at an opportune time.  Threads here cover a lot of topics and often move quickly.

 

 

This sounds intriguing. :D can't wait to hear more about it.

 

I don't normally write game design/mechanics but I was getting tired of the bottleneck of career centric stats/skills - which led me to start on a system. I posted it on gamedev (Eerily, I called it Project Escalation.... I know.... same abbreviation oooooo ).

 

So essentially, my attempt came down to a system that could enable a variety of builds within an 'archtype' the player would sculpt along the way:

 

the link: http://www.gamedev.net/topic/604809-mechanics-for-an-mmo-or-not/?p=4826942&fromsearch=1&do=findComment&comment=4826942

 

Note: It looks like the attachment on the site got wonked, the tables lost cell background colors - data is still visible if you highlight. FYI, I didn't really proof the document all that well. Don't expect you to read it - just expressing similar sentiments.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Kveldulf