Attribute theory

[Ganrich]

I would much prefer Spirit or Soul to Ferocity. Just because of PEs Soul mechanics. They fit the world better.

[Silent Winter]

 

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.

You learn something every day - thanks   Makes more sense that way.

(Though I think, at least in BG, it is also used as the beauty/charming stat - you could interpret it as 'presence' but it still precludes 'slovenly', 'smelly', etc (certain NPCs comment on your looks if CHA=15+ or something, or maybe that's just some mods who took the same misinterpretation *shrug*) - it's not just used as a measure of your divine power/gift - which I think was my point, one attribute but more than one effect)

[forgottenlor]

I would much prefer Spirit or Soul to Ferocity. Just because of PEs Soul mechanics. They fit the world better.

I'm not sure I'd prefer one over the other, but I think both (though with fundamentally different explanations) are much, much better than intellect. I really like Antioxidant's explanation for ferocity. On the other had I can see how Soul or Spirit, being more abstract terms, might fit better into already designed non combat skill checks, than say ferocity would.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Antioxidant

 

 

...

 

I'm a sad, sad panda now.

Edited December 26, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Nonek]

One has been ruminating on this most troubling matter while masticating various seasonal delights, and I have come to the conclusion that though I do like Aluminiumtrioxid's system i'm also fine with Mr Sawyer's original system, however as a piece of theorycrafting I would like to air my view of a perfect systrem.

 

Might = Strength and Intellect.

Reflex = Dexterity and Perception.

Fortitude = Constitution and Resolve.

 

Strength as the physical brute side of Power I would have affect melee damage and encumberance, how hard one hits and what they may heft on their back or in their hand. Intellect as the artistic side of the Power spectrum I would have affect critical damage, durations and AOE size, putting ones training and knowledge to good use in a smart manner. Thus the clever duellist and brute have natural favoured attributes.

 

Dexterity I would have affect melee accuracy, this is only logical bearing in mind the terms well known origins. Perception as the interaction of eye and mind speed I would have affect ranged weapon and spell accuracy, as well as base ranged weapon damage.

 

Constitution I would have affect Health and number of inventory slots, the bodys physical limits and what it may comfortably carry. Resolve as sheer grit, ferocity and stubbornness I would have affect base spell damage, healing and stamina. The inner fire if one likes that drives one on when they should fall, and fuels their passions.

 

I'm fine with whatever system is implemented however, and am merely citing these changes as my own personal desires.

[Yonjuro]

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

 

 

 This is a tangential discussion to compare the (non-simulationist) attributes to real life, but your perception of how things work in real life is mistaken.

 

 Strength is largely a skill. Weight training can increase cross sectional area of muscles which increases strength, but has many purely skill learning aspects and it is possible for a strength athlete to dramatically increase strength, for years or even decades, without increasing muscle mass at all. Athletes who compete in sports with weight classes, including Olympic weightlifters who sometimes compete in 3 or 4 Olympic games at the same weight class, train strength almost purely as a skill (after gaining increased striation that allows individual fibers to contract more strongly, without gaining size - after that skill is all that's left).

 

That said,  you share your misconceptions with (probably) the vast majority of people and one could argue that there is value in giving people what they expect (you know, instead of the truth).

[Nonek]

My training partner insists that strength mainly comes from the joints, with muscles being a side effect. Certainly seems to work for that chap, he's very strong and was a solid teammate in the scrum.

[anameforobsidian]

This conversation made me think of the perfect analogy: The Princess Bride. Andre the giant is the perfect thug character, but he's outdamaged/loses all stamina in a fight of strength / wrestling match.

[Adhin]

I love that movie, easily one of the best ever. And yeah he does lose that fight, but its mostly him waring him self out then I think he gets knocked out from a rock over the head. Not sure I'd count that as 'out damaged' since he basically beat him self up in the end. But hes a good example of a loveable brute character. Anybody want a peanut?

[Silent Winter]

I love that movie, easily one of the best ever. And yeah he does lose that fight, but its mostly him waring him self out then I think he gets knocked out from a rock over the head. Not sure I'd count that as 'out damaged' since he basically beat him self up in the end. But hes a good example of a loveable brute character. Anybody want a peanut?

Actually, I think he gets put in a sleeper hold ("Hitting a man in the head with a rock is not very sportsmanlike")

Edit: I think it's Inigo who gets knocked out

Edited December 27, 2013 by Silent Winter

[Adhin]

Hah your right, sleeper hold. Seriously love that movie.

[Sensuki]

Talking about PE attributes without mention of combat stats is pretty much a waste of time. I see lots of posts about fluff, which is the stuff that doesn't matter.

[Silent Winter]

Talking about PE attributes without mention of combat stats is pretty much a waste of time. I see lots of posts about fluff, which is the stuff that doesn't matter.

But we are discussing combat stats - the other stuff (assuming you mean our comments on dialogue and cut-scene interactions) isn't 'fluff', it's part of the game.  Combat is a big part, sure, but why not have a system that accounts for everything?

If strength isn't doing the strength job that most people are accustomed to, then rename it - same for intellect.

My problem isn't that combat-stats don't work like they should, just that it might be counter-intuitive for some people to use and so diminish some people's enjoyment of the game.

Personally, I'd enjoy it as is.

[curryinahurry]

@ Sensuki

 

There has been a running discussion about attributes, their functions, and how combat stats can be adjusted to be more in line with player expectations and common sense understanding as Silent Winter posted above.  You need to go back a few pages to where Lephys described his character concept that wasn't currently possible in the current system.  

 

Specifically, combat stats are affected by this discussion because the re-working of attribute labels would allow for the possible creation of a set of skills that were associated with characteristics.  We discussed moving strength into the Skill column where it could function as most expect it to; giving bonuses to damage and movement in heavy armor.  The reality is that the same could be done with something like intellect, chraisma, or any other player characteristic that may have been dislodged.  More granularity allows for greater variety in role play but also more variety in augmenting aspects of combat, whether damage, crits, duration of effects, etc.

[Ganrich]

 

I would much prefer Spirit or Soul to Ferocity. Just because of PEs Soul mechanics. They fit the world better.

I'm not sure I'd prefer one over the other, but I think both (though with fundamentally different explanations) are much, much better than intellect. I really like Antioxidant's explanation for ferocity. On the other had I can see how Soul or Spirit, being more abstract terms, might fit better into already designed non combat skill checks, than say ferocity would.

 

I agree, but would say I like Spirit more than Soul.  The reason being that I think the attributes should all be different parts of the Soul and not the Soul itself.  Ferocity is a form of Spirit, and thus Spirit can have different playtypes associated with it.  A calm spirit, a fighting spirit, a playful spirit.  It allows for variations on how you play.  Ferocity kind of feels a little jailed in that respect.  I have said previously that I would like Body, Mind, and Spirit to all be attributes. 

 

Current attributes and what I would replace them with in ().

 

Strength (Body)

Constitution (Endurance)

Dexterity

Perception (Mind) < to replace Intellect skill checks and allow for something more broad.

Intellect (Spirit)

Resolve

 

In combat they would work just as Josh has explained with no exceptions.

 

Body -  Health and Inventory size

Endurance -  Stamina

Dexterity -  Accuracy

Mind -  Increased Critical

Spirit -  Increased Damage

Resolve -  Increased Effect Duration and AoE size.

 

(Correct me if I missed something with that.)

 

Out of combat things need to be moved around with Mind and Spirit.  Everything else stays the same.  Obviously, Intellect checks and Perception checks would be governed through the Mind attribute now.  That leaves some non-combat skills/abilities needed for Spirit.  My suggestion is to have intimidation checks governed by Spirit, and perhaps checks that could be governed by Wisdom in other systems as well:  Philosophical stuff.    Body would still cover breaking down doors, lifting a siege gate, etc.  Endurance is lasting in tough physical circumstances.  Dexterity is avoiding trap damage, speed checks, etc.  Resolve is similar to Endurance but with mentally tough scenarios more than physical, and some dialogue. 

 

I would still have these stats play off one another in pairs for the other defensive stats as Josh suggested.  Pretty much identical there.

 

Body, Endurance, Dexterity, Mind, Spirit, and Resolve can all play into the soul theme.  Dexterity being the weakest of them in that regard, IMHO. 

[Cultist]

@Cultist, would you still not sacrifice Int if someone demonstrated mathematically to you that some other combination or base damage bonus, accuracy, crit chance, and attack speed yields greater damage per hit and damage per second in all circumstances? Just asking.

I will consider it. For fighter\rogue, if crit build wold be more potent or Int will not provide some other benefits, like additional dialogue options or such, then i may consider changing it. The problem is that if one attribute foverns damage output then it'll be inevitably required and everything could simply go down to what other stat should I max. So far from scarse info we got STR looks like a dump stat. Maybe after some more information about inventory system will be released its value will go up.

[Sensuki]

@ Sensuki

 

You need to go back a few pages to where Lephys described his character concept that wasn't currently possible in the current system.

No thanks.

 

It is pointless.

 

I am not really interested in player expectations as TBH most players have garbage expectations and desires. I would rather focus on the design goals themselves.

• No dump stats
• Dumping a stat is harmful to every build
• Every attribute must be useful for every character (class)
• Attributes must be reasonably balanced
• It should be hard to make a bad character
• No Attribute shall govern multiple defenses

The only other thing to consider about attributes other than combat stats is dialogue and scripted interaction attribute checks.

 

I'm thinking of creating a new thread as I do not like the direction this one has taken.

 

This was the last setup I was working on. I do not believe it is possible to have a very good attribute system if the three secondary defenses are given to all six attributes as is like spreading butter across too much bread.

 

Might - Damage, Healing, Stamina Regen

Perception - Accuracy, Criticals

Endurance - Stamina, Inventory Size

Vitality - Fortitude, Health, Effect Reduction

Dexterity - Reflex, Action Speed

Resolve - Willpower, Durations/AoE Size

Edited December 27, 2013 by Sensuki

[Kveldulf]

 

@ Sensuki

 

You need to go back a few pages to where Lephys described his character concept that wasn't currently possible in the current system.

No thanks.

 

It is pointless.

 

I am not really interested in player expectations as TBH most players have garbage expectations and desires. I would rather focus on the design goals themselves.

• No dump stats
• Dumping a stat is harmful to every build
• Every attribute must be useful for every character (class)
• Attributes must be reasonably balanced
• It should be hard to make a bad character
• No Attribute shall govern multiple defenses

The only other thing to consider about attributes other than combat stats is dialogue and scripted interaction attribute checks.

 

I'm thinking of creating a new thread as I do not like the direction this one has taken.

 

This was the last setup I was working on. I do not believe it is possible to have a very good attribute system if the three secondary defenses are given to all six attributes as is like spreading butter across too much bread.

 

Might - Damage, Healing, Stamina Regen

Perception - Accuracy, Criticals

Endurance - Stamina, Inventory Size

Vitality - Fortitude, Health, Effect Reduction

Dexterity - Reflex, Action Speed

Resolve - Willpower, Durations/AoE Size

 

 

I'm not sure if Might, Perception, Endurance, Vitality, Dexterity, Resolve are official?? or your brand?

 

My take on those are:

 

Might - Shouldn't be left so generic and applicable to so much - too abstract. 'Might' instead should be reserved in the classic sense, brawn. For whatever reason, in this day in age, we think bigger doesn't represent strength (might) because we heard, saw, feel that it isn't so. Well I disagree because my logic tells me: a big fast guy would be better than a small fast guy. I think many are so mutually inclusive over this stat because small non-Helga (woman) fighters look better, even though realistically it’s not the case. In the end, I think there are other undertones with renaming this stat - *cough* political correctness* cough*

 

Perception - Okay, but accuracy with all weapons right?

 

Endurance - Sounds bland and similar to resolve (the nomenclature), they both sound like they should be the same stat. (true for other systems too, imho)

 

Vitality - Again, this sounds repetitive with the above

 

Dexterity - Okay

 

Resolve - See Endurance

 

 

I think fundamentally starting; the six stats ought to be bifurcated, in a diametric way, like so:

 

PHYSICAL               MENTAL

 

Strength       vs-      Intelect

Constitution  vs-      Willpower

Dexterity       vs-      Perception

 

So what I'm trying to say with this is:

 

You will never have an opposing test where a physical stat is vs another physical stat (Generally)

 

You will never have an opposing test where a mental stat is vs another mental stat (Generally)

 

 

I believe this design is more congruent with a realistic depiction than the abstract, dare I say relative prerogative so hodge podgly introduced in most systems.

 

Please, know I mean no disrespect with my thoughts. I'm not trying to rain on your parade/thoughts... just constructive (attempting) criticism.

 

Cheers

[forgottenlor]

 

Antioxidant

 

 

...

 

I'm a sad, sad panda now.

 

Many apologies. Pure sloppiness on my part. I beg forgiveness.

[Sensuki]

Please, know I mean no disrespect with my thoughts. I'm not trying to rain on your parade/thoughts... just constructive (attempting) criticism.

 

Cheers

That is just one of my takes on balancing the combat stats across the attributes. It is a gamist system and the names mean nothing. It is designed with all but one of the current restraints of the attribute system, I took the liberty of making the secondary defenses compete against the other combat stats. That is not what I would want as an attribute system and I agree that Endurance and Vitality are superfluous and one stat would be better.

 

However I think you are perhaps misunderstanding some of the mechanics. That design is actually more balanced than the current system.

 

I also like three mental and three physical combat stats but it is hard to do in the current design without being really unintuitive and that is why people are complaining about Intellect governing damage.

 

Also for anyone else interested, check this thread out: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64891-attribute-questionnaire/

Edited December 27, 2013 by Sensuki

[Kveldulf]

 

Please, know I mean no disrespect with my thoughts. I'm not trying to rain on your parade/thoughts... just constructive (attempting) criticism.

 

Cheers

That is just one of my takes on balancing the combat stats across the attributes. It is a gamist system and the names mean nothing. It is designed with all but one of the current restraints of the attribute system, I took the liberty of making the secondary defenses compete against the other combat stats. That is not what I would want as an attribute system and I agree that Endurance and Vitality are superfluous and one stat would be better.

 

However I think you are perhaps misunderstanding some of the mechanics. That design is actually more balanced than the current system.

 

I also like three mental and three physical combat stats but it is hard to do in the current design without being really unintuitive and that is why people are complaining about Intellect governing damage.

 

Also for anyone else interested, check this thread out: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64891-attribute-questionnaire/

 

I have to disagree with the comment that "its merely a gamist system - names are just placeholders" (paraphrased). It seems that the names ought to be legalistic, if they are intended to portray anything well. Skills and abilities ought to be reserved for the band-aids needed for 'perceived balance' issues. Abstract representation can only go so far before it becomes homogenous tasteless soup, imho. Ability/reactions/action type filler would be a better approach than trying to fudge too many values under one stat umbrella.

 

I cringe anymore at the mention of balance; an empirical trepidation brought from other systems' lack luster stat increments and so called "progressive scales". I'm not snubbing my nose entirely at these ideas, just saying that, in this case, I really don't like that version of 'Might'. It's as though the idea has kicked out reality and replaced it with a Picaso.

 

Also, "unintuitive" is a rough word for this genre. Seems to me that if we are to really balance any system, it first should be done with a symmetric design, and described adequately.

 

An intelect bonus being used as 'indirect' melee damage isn't that hard to swallow - if it has a properly worded tooltip and properly placed in the UI.

 

Anymore I want to see a system that views attributes as multipliers from a base (racial) +skill ability values.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Kveldulf

[Sensuki]

If you read back further in the thread. You will see that it is exactly the same as the Intellect attribute that is in the game now. Josh Sawyer then asked if there was an attribute called "Might" or "Power" in the game, what would they think that attribute does - for me it would be damage.

 

I didn't say placeholders. I said they don't really mean anything. It is no worse than the current attribute system mentioned previously in the thread by Josh Sawyer (the lead designer on PE) and I am just following in his footsteps, but giving *slightly* more appropriate names to attributes.

 

I also agreed (previously in this forum, this thread, on RPGCodex and Something Awful) that I don't mind Intellect governing all damage either, but I would also not mind "Might" because you can also get the same suspension of disbelief with a tooltip as you say if it does not mean physical might.

 

I am not really interested in this conversation however as this revolves around how simulationist the combat stats are relative to their attribute name. If the Lead Designer doesn't really care about that, then I'm not going to bother either.

[Kveldulf]

If you read back further in the thread. You will see that it is exactly the same as the Intellect attribute that is in the game now. Josh Sawyer then asked if there was an attribute called "Might" or "Power" in the game, what would they think that attribute does - for me it would be damage.

 

I didn't say placeholders. I said they don't really mean anything. It is no worse than the current attribute system mentioned previously in the thread by Josh Sawyer (the lead designer on PE) and I am just following in his footsteps, but giving *slightly* more appropriate names to attributes.

 

I also agreed (previously in this forum, this thread, on RPGCodex and Something Awful) that I don't mind Intellect governing all damage either, but I would also not mind "Might" because you can also get the same suspension of disbelief with a tooltip as you say if it does not mean physical might.

 

I am not really interested in this conversation however as this revolves around how simulationist the combat stats are relative to their attribute name. If the Lead Designer doesn't really care about that, then I'm not going to bother either.

 

KK I understand. Though, just to be clear, I wasn't so much directing my statements at you, but also in general, to other readers/devs

 

Cheers

Edited December 27, 2013 by Kveldulf

[Sensuki]

NP buddy, cheers for your input in the other thread.

[Nonek]

• Dumping a stat is harmful to every build
• Every attribute must be useful for every character (class)
• Attributes must be reasonably balanced
• It should be hard to make a bad character
• No Attribute shall govern multiple defenses
• No dump stats

 

 

I hate to say it but these design goals seem to point to characters who are not very distinctive, hopefully one can still make characters with definite strengths and weaknesses.