Attribute theory

[PrimeJunta]

@Sensuki IMO that's kind of the worst of both worlds. You lose the role-playing/character-concept-support aspect of attributes, but keep the way they bork up the mechanics. So a strong NO on that one.

[Sensuki]

That is pretty much exactly what is happening at the moment, minus the defenses.

 

And hello Mor, forever tagging along disagreeing with my posts - but as always not reading the whole thread, or my other posts and making big misinterpretations. Let me help you understand once again.

 

First have a read of this: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64891-attribute-questionnaire/

 

Unless I am mistaken, what you suggest is that:

1. Defense stats won't be derived from attributes, instead we'll be able to distribute defense points as we wish. Because you believe its limiting.

2. Replace 'Critical Damage' with 'Action Speed', because even though you stated that josh design goal is balance, you believe that 'Critical Damage' is inferior to the others stats.

In that explicit example, yes. Although as I state down the bottom - I don't like that system, but it changes less things than the other ones I have suggested.

 

As far as Defense stats, IMO the current system makes more sense and more balanced then what you suggest. Also keep in mind that attributes along with class only determine your initial defense stats, after that you'll be assigning defense points each level where ever you want. Also class have unique passive abilities they can choose from, that you gain through experience and make your character more distinct.

No actually your defenses will go up automatically (in PE), you won't be assigning points to them every level up. You also haven't actually stated whether you like the current system or not, but I am going to assume that you do. You can't really say whether having a defense tied to two attributes is more balanced than a separate pool or not. FTR I don't actually like the separate pool idea.

 

As for 'Critical Damage', I am not certain we know enough about abilities to make such statements. While your suggestion to replace it with 'Action Speed' might brake some aspect of the game, if I understand correctly the whole aspect of the no class limit with armor/weapons is balanced around Action Speed(weight speed penalty).

 

* which IMO is the right way to go, our attributes, can take us so far,

Refer to:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64891-attribute-questionnaire/

 

In Eternity, criticals are only gained when a character has an accuracy that is equal or higher than a target's defense. This makes scoring criticals reliant on accuracy. Accuracy is governed by another attribute. I believe this makes perception an inferior attribute for many classes. Accuracy is clearly the more valuable attribute as an increase in accuracy likely adds more of a reliable damage (DPS) increase - converting more misses to grazes, grazes to hits and hits to criticals. Critical Damage also likely implies that it also effects durations of critical hits on non-damage spells ... well Resolve already gives a steady increase to durations of those spells, and Intellect gives more flat damage. All three of these make an increase in critical damage an inferior choice to almost all builds because the chance of getting a critical is random, whereas all other attributes give a reliable increase in efficacy - as they add something on grazes, hits and criticals, whereas critical damage only adds something of value when a critical is scored. Perception increases Reflex defense, although so does Dexterity (which governs accuracy).

 

...

 

Although this has never been a feature of D&D, I think adding it in would solve some of the design problems.

 

I think Action Speed would be a good combat stat to have in Eternity. My definition of Action Speed here governs the speed of ALL actions in combat - Attacks, "Cast Time" of spells and abilities, Item use and the 'downtime' between such actions. It could simply govern the downtime between actions alone, or just the speed of the actions themselves - or all of them. All are possible, within reasonable limits.

 

It would be cool if you could create a character who was "Fast" and who act faster in armor than a character who did not invest in the attribute that governed it.

I know plenty, and no way am I finding you all of the quotes that I reference in that statement, you can do it yourself for a change.

 

You can have an attribute that controls Action Speed without breaking anything, it wouldn't be that difficult at all. IMO it's definitely a better combat stat to use than critical damage. Effect Reduction would also be another one that mightn't be too bad.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Sensuki

[Mor]

@Sensuki. No, I haven't read your post in that questionnaire thread, as I told/hinted you before the world doesn't revolve around you, and I really don't care that you haven't been following this thread and decided to start a new thread and assume that people read it.. so I will appreciate, clarification on your part without snide remarks referring to other threads.

 

Also I don't have a lot of time to post, if it seems to you that I tend to disagree with your post more then usual and its not the issue above or related to you being a very passionate user, who tend to be vocal about many thing you perceive as issues(seeking attention from devs?). Then probably because I find your post disagreeable. In this case, I was annoyed to waste time reading many post about how we discuss meaningless things, many vague notions about combat stats, power gaming and Josh, with finally actual suggestion(that you just said that you don't even like!) that IMO didn't established that something is broken, nor improved upon it as I summarized and explained. So instead of inventing personal issues, simply make good arguments or ignore.

 

In Eternity, criticals are only gained when a character has an accuracy that is equal or higher than a target's defense. This makes scoring criticals reliant on accuracy. Accuracy is governed by another attribute. I believe this makes perception an inferior attribute for many classes.

Personally, I find Constitution(Stamina) to be the most inferior attribute, because I don't understand how it works, have they changed the way stamina/health equal polls work? or will it effect stamina regeneration i.e. in combat only useful to Fighter and afterwards meaningless because you can simply wait it out...

 

As for your assumption about Perception(critical damage). You said it yourself Josh want to make a balanced system, so is it possible that you haven't considered how abilities or some other aspect of the game work? maybe they end up with changing the attack resolution shift(which is how I assume the critical defense ability work)

Edited December 28, 2013 by Mor

[Sensuki]

I don't really care that you haven't been following this thread and decided to start a new thread and assume that people read it

Say what? I've read every post in this thread.

 

with actual suggestion, which IMO didn't improve.

Three or four suggestions over the course of the thread.

 

Personally, I find Constitution(Stamina) to be the most inferior attribute, because I don't understand how it works, have they changed the way stamina/health equal polls work? or will it effect stamina regeneration i.e. in combat only useful to Fighter and afterwards meaningless because you can simply wait it out...

You know, you could be right - it depends on how much Stamina and Health a character has before attributes are applied, however since Stamina takes full damage from attacks and Health only takes 25% damage from attacks, more Stamina equates to more longevity in an individual encounter. More Health only matters after "a few encounters" - Josh has said that in some edge cases characters have lost 70% Health in an encounter. Since you have the ability to rest and probably the ability to abuse rest (such as constantly retreat to rest locations and your Stronghold after a few battles), the Strength attribute may not be as valuable as the Constitution attribute.

 

As for your comments regarding Perception - Critical Damage would be useful in the cases where your character has a very high accuracy and/or is attacking a monster's weak defense.

 

If that weak defense is Fortitude, Reflex or Will - most attacks that target those secondary defenses are ability and spell based, and most of those are per-encounter and per-day use. Even with a 25% chance to score a Critical Hit (+20 higher than the defense), you are still probably better off increasing Intellect, Dexterity or Resolve for a flat increase in DPS through damage, more accuracy or longer durations/larger AoEs.

 

What I am saying is the bonus only applies very situationally as opposed to on EVERY_SINGLE_ATTACK like the other attributes. Perception is just a loser compared to Dexterity, so I wouldn't be surprised if that attribute sees a bit of a revision.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Sensuki

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Well, it depends on how big an increase it provides. Definitely needs to be significantly greater than the amount you gain from Intellect (say, 200% vs. 20%).

[Sensuki]

Do you really want random whopping criticals in the game - when the attack resolution design is specifically to take a lot of the randomosity out of it ?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

If a character with maxed-out Dex and Int consistently does better average damage than the character with maxed-out Dex and Per, the system's broken. If random whopping criticals are the only way to avoid this, so be it.

Edited December 28, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Lephys]

Wow... lot of discussion since I was on holiday vacation. 8P

 

Okay, so, I'm kinda just firing these off to what's been said over the last 5 pages, just FYI...

 

A lot of this is, ehh... terminology interpretation barriers, methinks. Take, for example, the "strength is totes a skill" argument. I would say that no, no it is not. In the literal meaning of words, no it isn't. Skill could be a part of it, but that doesn't make it A skill. That's like saying knowledge is a skill. No, you use mental capacity to be capable of comprehending how to read, and then you read to take in knowledge. Thus, your knowledge capacity is made up of both your inherent attribute (your raw intelligence) AND the effort you've actively put into gaining knowledge.

 

How strong is an engine? The fact that you can modify that engine to make it stronger (or even weaker), or that it can run at varying efficiencies, or that you can apply the energy it generates to a number of tasks to a number of degrees of effectiveness is COMPLETELY beside the point. If you have a hamster running in a wheel, you simply cannot launch a catapult boulder at a field of soldiers. If you're a weakling, you can probably rig up a machine or apparatus that will do what your muscles cannot. But, guess what? You're not the one generating the energy/force necessary to perform the task. You're getting that from some other means. Doesn't mean there's no force needed, or that your ingenuity = strength. No. The results are the amount of force required to perform the task, but they didn't come from you, and that makes all the difference in the world.

 

The other thing I've seen almost NOTHING of in the last 5-or-so-pages (since my last post in here, really) is the meaning of stats in not-purely-combat-related capacities. This kind of ties in to what I was just saying. In a role-playing game, your character has attributes for a reason beyond just "how much damage am I doing in combat?". You have attributes that tell about you, and then that tells what you can or cannot do in a given situation throughout your travels. So, if you're super intelligent, and the ceiling starts collapsing, your intelligence counts for nothing. Why? Because all you have at your immediate disposal is yourself. You can either utilize the strength of your body and hold up some beam or something, or you cannot. If you need to break something off, and it's made of metal, then you MIGHT have a really effective tool at your disposal, but it still requires a minimum amount of force to work (leverage, for example, only amplifying the force that's already there). Okay, maybe you're a wuss, and you just build a 17-foot-long lever to make up for that. OR, maybe you're not carrying that around with you, and/or it won't fit in the room, etc.

 

As someone who works on cars a decent bit, and lives in a family of mechanic folk, I can attest to the fact that there is often a bolt you need to turn or break loose that is in a very cramped location, thus preventing the use of longer wrenches and other leverage-inducing devices. Yet, my stupidly-strong brother can just turn a lot of them with a regular wrench and his sheer arm/wrist strength. The only difference there being raw strength of muscle.

 

So, yeah... and, regarding non-combat stuff, there's a LOT of that to be had with something like Intellect. And yes, raw damage is not the end-all-be-all of a warrior/brute archetype, since even Intellect's raw damage bonus is still just a factor in your actual circumstantial damage output/results in any given situation. BUT, it's still a factor. And if you can min-max all the other ones, then why not that one? If you want to do 10 damage with all your hits instead of 5, base, and just hardly ever crit and have trouble hitting agile people, then why SHOULDN'T you be able to do that? And why should you have to become super intelligent just to do that?

 

People keep pointing out the other factors involved in final damage output, but are acting as though damage, itself, is not one of those. "Don't worry about X, since you can just boost Y and Z, ^_^" What if I want to boost Y and X? or Z and X? If there are three factors, then why are we just pretending its fine that one of them is attached to a stat that doesn't at all support an entire array of overall character builds: non-smarty-pants people?

 

Also, finally, @Ganrich, as for your Brute example that works fine... it would have to be high Dexterity somewhere in there for you to crit a lot. Perception just affects crit damage, not crit chance. So, all high perception's gonna do is make your rare, rare crits be that much more devastating. Not a very good replacement for raw base damage, if you ask me. Especially since the system allows for a crit chance of 0 in a lot of cases, unless you have ridiculously high dexterity. Speaking of which, every point you put into Dexterity is a point you cannot put into Perception, so the more often you can crit, the less you're going to crit for. Which brings us back to base damage, which is the third, equally-valid-and-important factor of this tripod. If your base damage is 1, it doesn't really matter how much your amplifying it.

 

And, for the love of all that is holy, the point here is that all the factors are important. Before someone comes back with some kind of "base damage is nothing if you can't hit people!". See, most of the arguments seem to be directed at the idea that I want Strength to give a damage bonus, and for Intellect to not affect damage in any way. Which is wrong... OR, that I want to put all my points in Strength (with it giving me bonus base damage), and just dump everything else, which is ALSO wrong.

 

Obviously, the most effective person, in terms of sheer damage from stats (all other damage -- weapon, skill, ability, etc. -- is irrelevant, because it's all going to be there no matter what. There's going to be icing, no matter how much cake there is), is going to be the one with max Intellect, max Dexterity, and max Perception (in the given build). That's not going to change a lick even if Strength got the damage bonus and Intellect lost it, except that you'd replace the names.

 

TL;DR:

 

Both Strength AND Intellect affect damage, as do Accuracy (from Dexterity), Perception, weapon damage itself, skills, abilities, etc.

 

So, why doesn't Strength play any role in the damage equation, and why is base damage somehow unimportant in the equation?

 

Oh, and non-combat stuff (think scripted decisions). Does everyone in the universe now use Intellect-based soulpowers to accomplish all things? Or are strong people still effective in certain situations where weak people are not (think scripted interactions and stat checks, etc.). Aka, "Screw damage for a second, and just think about all the other things Strength affects that are power-based in a role-playing environment."

Edited December 28, 2013 by Lephys

[Ganrich]

@Lephys -  You are right.  I didn't read Josh's post correctly, or I did and forgot.  So, that changes things a little, but not much.  IIRC this game won't use random rolls of the dice to determine stats like the IE games, but a point buy in like in the NWN games.  Correct me if I am wrong with that because I cannot find where I read it (if I did as I could be imagining it). 

 

I just hopped into NWN2 to play around with stat distribution.  On a human character you can have 5 stats at 14 and 1 at 10, 2 16s a 14 and 3 10s, 1 18 a 14 and a 12 with 3 10s, etc.  This isn't including racial bonus' as I chose humans.  My biggest issue with 3E and 3.5 are that the bonuses from stats come with every 2 points in the governing attribute, and I hope this isn't in the case with this game.  If every point is valuable (and not just every 2 points) then we could have very diverse builds with this system. 

 

So, using NWN2 point buy system strapped to PoE's attributes again you could have a character that has pretty high Perception and Dexterity while still having points available to increase other stats to an extent.  Like I said, it doesn't change much, but it is what it is. 

 

Oh, and I do realize you are advocating that STR and Int increase damage simultaneously, and it is something I am not necessarily against.  I just worry that giving carrying capacity, health, and damage to STR that it will be much more needed than Int if we do that.  So, other things would need to change as a repercussion.  I do like keeping stamina and health separated like I expressed in Sensuki's other thread "Attribute Questionnaire."  So, I can't say what I would do to keep STR from being the go to damage stat if that was changed.  I still hold to the fact that bigger weapons will likely require a higher STR to use, and they likely have a higher base damage. 

[Kveldulf]

Wow... lot of discussion since I was on holiday vacation. 8P

 

Okay, so, I'm kinda just firing these off to what's been said over the last 5 pages, just FYI...

 

A lot of this is, ehh... terminology interpretation barriers, methinks. Take, for example, the "strength is totes a skill" argument. I would say that no, no it is not. In the literal meaning of words, no it isn't. Skill could be a part of it, but that doesn't make it A skill. That's like saying knowledge is a skill. No, you use mental capacity to be capable of comprehending how to read, and then you read to take in knowledge. Thus, your knowledge capacity is made up of both your inherent attribute (your raw intelligence) AND the effort you've actively put into gaining knowledge.

 

How strong is an engine? The fact that you can modify that engine to make it stronger (or even weaker), or that it can run at varying efficiencies, or that you can apply the energy it generates to a number of tasks to a number of degrees of effectiveness is COMPLETELY beside the point. If you have a hamster running in a wheel, you simply cannot launch a catapult boulder at a field of soldiers. If you're a weakling, you can probably rig up a machine or apparatus that will do what your muscles cannot. But, guess what? You're not the one generating the energy/force necessary to perform the task. You're getting that from some other means. Doesn't mean there's no force needed, or that your ingenuity = strength. No. The results are the amount of force required to perform the task, but they didn't come from you, and that makes all the difference in the world.

 

The other thing I've seen almost NOTHING of in the last 5-or-so-pages (since my last post in here, really) is the meaning of stats in not-purely-combat-related capacities. This kind of ties in to what I was just saying. In a role-playing game, your character has attributes for a reason beyond just "how much damage am I doing in combat?". You have attributes that tell about you, and then that tells what you can or cannot do in a given situation throughout your travels. So, if you're super intelligent, and the ceiling starts collapsing, your intelligence counts for nothing. Why? Because all you have at your immediate disposal is yourself. You can either utilize the strength of your body and hold up some beam or something, or you cannot. If you need to break something off, and it's made of metal, then you MIGHT have a really effective tool at your disposal, but it still requires a minimum amount of force to work (leverage, for example, only amplifying the force that's already there). Okay, maybe you're a wuss, and you just build a 17-foot-long lever to make up for that. OR, maybe you're not carrying that around with you, and/or it won't fit in the room, etc.

 

As someone who works on cars a decent bit, and lives in a family of mechanic folk, I can attest to the fact that there is often a bolt you need to turn or break loose that is in a very cramped location, thus preventing the use of longer wrenches and other leverage-inducing devices. Yet, my stupidly-strong brother can just turn a lot of them with a regular wrench and his sheer arm/wrist strength. The only difference there being raw strength of muscle.

 

So, yeah... and, regarding non-combat stuff, there's a LOT of that to be had with something like Intellect. And yes, raw damage is not the end-all-be-all of a warrior/brute archetype, since even Intellect's raw damage bonus is still just a factor in your actual circumstantial damage output/results in any given situation. BUT, it's still a factor. And if you can min-max all the other ones, then why not that one? If you want to do 10 damage with all your hits instead of 5, base, and just hardly ever crit and have trouble hitting agile people, then why SHOULDN'T you be able to do that? And why should you have to become super intelligent just to do that?

 

People keep pointing out the other factors involved in final damage output, but are acting as though damage, itself, is not one of those. "Don't worry about X, since you can just boost Y and Z, ^_^" What if I want to boost Y and X? or Z and X? If there are three factors, then why are we just pretending its fine that one of them is attached to a stat that doesn't at all support an entire array of overall character builds: non-smarty-pants people?

 

Also, finally, @Ganrich, as for your Brute example that works fine... it would have to be high Dexterity somewhere in there for you to crit a lot. Perception just affects crit damage, not crit chance. So, all high perception's gonna do is make your rare, rare crits be that much more devastating. Not a very good replacement for raw base damage, if you ask me. Especially since the system allows for a crit chance of 0 in a lot of cases, unless you have ridiculously high dexterity. Speaking of which, every point you put into Dexterity is a point you cannot put into Perception, so the more often you can crit, the less you're going to crit for. Which brings us back to base damage, which is the third, equally-valid-and-important factor of this tripod. If your base damage is 1, it doesn't really matter how much your amplifying it.

 

And, for the love of all that is holy, the point here is that all the factors are important. Before someone comes back with some kind of "base damage is nothing if you can't hit people!". See, most of the arguments seem to be directed at the idea that I want Strength to give a damage bonus, and for Intellect to not affect damage in any way. Which is wrong... OR, that I want to put all my points in Strength (with it giving me bonus base damage), and just dump everything else, which is ALSO wrong.

 

Obviously, the most effective person, in terms of sheer damage from stats (all other damage -- weapon, skill, ability, etc. -- is irrelevant, because it's all going to be there no matter what. There's going to be icing, no matter how much cake there is), is going to be the one with max Intellect, max Dexterity, and max Perception (in the given build). That's not going to change a lick even if Strength got the damage bonus and Intellect lost it, except that you'd replace the names.

 

TL;DR:

 

Both Strength AND Intellect affect damage, as do Accuracy (from Dexterity), Perception, weapon damage itself, skills, abilities, etc.

 

So, why doesn't Strength play any role in the damage equation, and why is base damage somehow unimportant in the equation?

 

Oh, and non-combat stuff (think scripted decisions). Does everyone in the universe now use Intellect-based soulpowers to accomplish all things? Or are strong people still effective in certain situations where weak people are not (think scripted interactions and stat checks, etc.). Aka, "Screw damage for a second, and just think about all the other things Strength affects that are power-based in a role-playing environment."

 

Agreed. Attributes and augmentations are different but related.

 

I wonder if some other agenda, other than brevity, is afoot; making intellect the new strength alludes to someone who had/has issues with jocks, bullies, movie indoctrination or perhaps living in their own kingdom for too long. . Really though, I'm not opposed to all stats affecting damage. As a matter of fact, I think in one way or another, all attributes should govern some aspect of defense and or offense.  

 

The borders of "gamist" and "simulationist" have to overlap somewhere or we get really confusing rules. In the sense of nomenclature (in this case) forgoing something so typical, for whatever reason, isn't a matter of effeciency/balance, but is looking more like a matter of mere distinguishment (from other systems), for the sake of it. Balance wise, it might sound good, in its own ecosystem, but for the player, its unneccessarily limiting.

 

If they think physical strength-damage can be abstractly represented, then okay, its their game to design.

 

To me, thus far, the representation of stats look too fudged/contrived. Though, the interactions between some of the stats (or promise of) sound interesting.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Kveldulf

[jamoecw]

 

Btw, how much do you expect base stats to matter even? Small bonus, defining bonus, flat, scaling, linear, diminishing, increasing, etc?

 

Defining values should always be the case, from level 1 to X. Most systems I've played seem to have an underwhelming definition between one score to another.

 

I remember early D&D having nice percentile caveats regarding a stat that hits 18, and the difference between 18 to 19 was dramatic. I'm not advocating this incorporation of the percentile qualifiers, neccessarily, but I am advocating the idea that attributes should have the same exponential stairstep, with incremental bonuses from skills or gear filling in - between each value.

 

i'd say exponential returns for direct benefit stuff, diminishing for indirect stuff.  so as you get stronger you can carry an exponentially heavier load, and your derived defense from the stat increases quite a bit.  though indirect stuff (like my suggestion for strength and encumbrance mitigation) wouldn't be very much better between average and top of the charts, though dumping it would matter still.  that way with power curves that go in both directions for a stat, dumping a stat hurts in certain ways, and maxing it is great in other ways, without making middle of the road builds useless.

 

i like to play around with math and numbers, so i notice trends that other people don't (though the renaming thing didn't occur to me, and i would be pretty crappy at coming up with such stuff).

 

@lephys:

attributes are qualities one has.  one can be weak and strong at the same time.  one can use skills and such which draw upon their attributes.  an engine that is strong might not be able to use that strength.  therefore in RPGs attributes aren't in fact attributes, but properties of the whole, which is neither skills or attributes but a combination of the two.

 

i guess the real question is that given that this game is about combat (you can minimize the amount of it you do, but you are still going to have to do it), should any attribute stat not be useful in combat?  and if they are all to be useful should they all be equally helpful?  should they all be equally harmful if dumped?  if a stat is not useful in combat should it make a big impact on the game?

Edited December 29, 2013 by jamoecw

[Lephys]

@lephys:

attributes are qualities one has.  one can be weak and strong at the same time.  one can use skills and such which draw upon their attributes.  an engine that is strong might not be able to use that strength.  therefore in RPGs attributes aren't in fact attributes, but properties of the whole, which is neither skills or attributes but a combination of the two.

While I don't flat-out disagree, I will say that I think any differences we have here is more a matter of semantics than actual point-conflict. It is partially my fault, as I don't think I made it clear in that last wall of text I constructed that I realize that a total, mathematically abstracted measure of one's "strength" covers both "strengths" and "weaknesses" -- which is exactly why it doesn't denote one particular FACET of strength, and why one person can be 5'1" and be Bruce Lee and still have an RPG-statistic Strength of 18 or something, while another person is 7' tall and super muscley, and only has a Strength of 19 or 20. The point isn't to explain all the exact, simulation-y effects upon that strength, but to simply and abstractly measure the general physical-power capabilities of that person. Hence points in strength increasing carry weight (if that isn't a direct correlation, I don't know what is... Intelligent people could find more pockets and elaborate harnesses with which to carry things, could they not? And Dexterous people could balance things better, could they not? And yet, a lack of Strength is still going to limit your ability to carry. Even though the other things affect it, its abstracted to the most major limiting factor -- even if you can fit it in your pack, that additional suit of plate armor is going to wear you out in 3 minutes of lugging it around, and therefore isn't feasible to carry.)

 

Also, in all this talk of "the engine may not be able to effectively apply that power" (and the like -- that particular point of argument, I mean), you don't seem to be thinking about the fact that the other stats already cover that. If Dexterity is already the ability to place your strike where you want it, and Intelligence is already the ability to know where to best want your strikes placed, then why would Strength be the ability to generate force and also effectively apply it? Really, all it can cover is a multitude of ways in which to effectively generate the force, as if you're missing, or intentionally striking in pathetic locations on your opponent, you're already not effectively applying that power due to Dexterity and Intelligence deficiencies. You can't miss someone (DEX) and have been aiming at the strongest possible spot in their armor in the first place (INT), and yet have your Strength rating STILL somehow represent the extent to which you're effectively applying the power your'e able to generate with your strike. What else is there, other then where you're aiming and where you're hitting?

 

Knowing whether or not you're effectively swinging your weapon (as in, are you holding that warhammer right up at the head of the hammer, or are you holding it where you're supposed to hold it?) is already covered by skill/knowledge/weapon proficiency. Not sheer intelligence.

 

Again, just because there's more to your actual damage output than Strength does NOT mean that it doesn't make perfect sense for it to represent the raw physical power you're able to generate with your body. Whether or not it's effectively applied is already handled by oodles of other mechanical variables.

 

i guess the real question is that given that this game is about combat (you can minimize the amount of it you do, but you are still going to have to do it), should any attribute stat not be useful in combat?  and if they are all to be useful should they all be equally helpful?  should they all be equally harmful if dumped?  if a stat is not useful in combat should it make a big impact on the game?

This is an excellent point.

 

 

@Ganrich:

 

I pretty much agree with that whole last post you made, . And no worries on the little Perception mistake. I only meant to correct the info you had, nothing more, and I realize that it doesn't change a whole lot. But, it DOES make me think... even without straying very far from a basis of reality, Perception would allow you to see/detect more of the best "openings" to strike for maximum effect, so it does make sense for it to maybe affect crit chance, then for intelligence to affect crit [/i]damage[/i], potentially (you might can SEE all the openings with good Perception, but you don't know the best ways to exploit them without good Intelligence? *shrug*).

 

I dunno... the only issue I find there is that there seems to be a bit of a clash or blurry line, at least, between the role of sheer Intellect and the role of skill/knowledge/proficiency. I mean, if someone teaches you sword techniques, and tells you to stab someone in the heart for maximum effect, or between ribs or something, and you have really good eyesight and can see those spots, and are dexterous enough to frequently reach those openings, do you REALLY need raw mental power to be able to comprehend that this badass instructor person who trained you knows what he's doing?

 

There might still need to be something like Intellect bonus caps, or... maybe some kind of Intellect X skill = crit damage modifier? *shrug*

[Ganrich]

I look at the intellect as the perfecting of knowledge and technique more quickly and that of course should play well with Perception and Dexterity.  You are going to need more than one stat for sure, and I would go on to say most characters will likely have medium to high in 3 different stats while being being average (give or take) in the other 3. 

 

Do we know how skills are working?  Will it be like 3E or 3.5 D&D where you get more points for investing in Intelligence?  If so that could be a good way to counter balance things in your recommended amendment to the system, Lephys.  Intellect brings skill points, damage, and healing vs Strength granting carrying capacity, health, and damage.  This would still require diminishing returns for investing in both STR and INT.  I doubt it matters as Josh said this was the system they are playing with for a while.  I still think our best chance of changing things is a name change of certain attributes give players a more immediate understanding of their function (In and out of combat).  I am still holding to:  Body, Endurance, Dexterity, Mind, Spirit, and Resolve.

[Lephys]

^ Yeah, I mean, the whole point of the "no dump stats" approach (and the beauty of it, really) is not really that you need all the stats. It's just that they all matter. If you dump one, you're going to feel it. So, yeah, multiple stats are going to matter. And, I mean, there are mathematically only so many you can have be very low (unless the system lets you create a character without allocating all your stat points). If you just had the idea "maximum damage output" in mind, though, you'd really need at least 3 stats to be pretty high, and you'd kind of suck at other things. Your Constitution and Resolve, for example, would probably suffer greatly. And I'm not sure you'd be able to get 4 stats really high (Strength, Intellect, Dexterity, AND Perception). And those are just for damage.

 

Anywho, the point is, you should have reasons for wanting every single one of the stats, even if your character goal doesn't want all of them. But, I really think Strength and Int should both play their parts in that. I don't know that it inherently causes problems to have raw damage bonuses, for example, split between Strength and Damage. Another thing is, when you first think about it, it seems like neither stat should really give you sheer bonus damage. BUT, that damage is NEVER going to be directly applied without first passing other factors (Accuracy, armor, weapon, critical damage, etc.). So, it's really just another factor, and not really a resulting damage bonus. It's not like "Oh, you grazed this enemy, AND he's strong against slashing because he's a skeleton, AND he has armor, so you only did 1 damage? ADD 5 DAMAGE TO THAT! >8D". Heh.

 

As for skills, no, I'm not really sure as to the specifics. I think we've had examples of them operating in isolation, like Lockpicking and such. I think they'll go from 1-100, and checks will basically be against Difficulty Ratings or whatever, but I haven't seen any examples of exactly how skills will interact with combat (like... Swordsmanship, or Evasion or something). I don't even know what skills will exist, in that regard. But, yes, Intelligence affecting skill points (at least the idea) does make sense in that regard.

 

I mean, I could list a dozen things that would fundamentally make sense and function in the proper manner, but I find it difficult to actually say "This one will work the best!" with the amount of information we currently have. Which is kind of why I'm pushing evaluations and general approaches to the system so much, rather than very specific implementations of mechanics. Of course, I DO love brainstorming.

 

And lastly, I'm not going to say that no name changes are in order, or that the names are insignificant, because that simply isn't the case. However, I just want to re-iterate that, if you're representing something with a stat, you're representing something with a stat, whatever the name. The biggest example I can give for the system sort of contradicting itself is that Strength boosts your carrying capacity. So, basically, "You can hold lots more heavy things against the forces of gravity, with ease, but you can't smash anything any harder with that same capability." Which is... well, kind of strange. Again, there are even plenty of other ways to let Strength play its part in combat equations, even without just splitting Base Damage Bonus between it and Intellect: Armor Penetration, Knockdown/knockback/stun chance... heck, you could even let IT modify crit damage (as opposed to my previously mentioned idea of Intellect doing that very thing). Once you hit someone in a soft spot with your sword, strength is going to drive it further in, right? *shrug* In general. I realize this is not ALWAYS the case. But, there are only so many bases you can cover with an abstracted system. 8P

[Fatback]

All I can say is that you can make a big brawny fighter that wields giant weapons who is dumb as a stump this system isn't going to stop you. But that char won't be "meta" which is a term that I hate. Your playing a rpg all the Roles you Play in this Game might not be optimal for being super god, but with a six man party your going to beat the game. So stop the river of hate

[Lephys]

It's not about being "meta" or optimal. It's about being able to make that type of character. The game's representing strength in its affect on everything BUT the force of weapons.

 

You can make a "big brawny fighter" who, what... is really healthy and can carry a lot? And also happens to wield giant weapons? Awesome. "Hey guys... that Wizard hits harder with this greatsword than I do, because he's got so much Intelligence, but I'M THE BIG UNINTELLIGENT FIGHTER WHO'S SCARY BECAUSE HE'S STRONG! FEAR MY NIGH-INFINITE HEALTH RESERVES AND CARRY WEIGHT!"

 

There is no stat in the current system that makes your strength worth anything in an offensive capacity, that doesn't ALSO make you quite smart. So, no... you can make a very formidable, storage-mule dumb Fighter, but there is no actual dumb strong brute Fighter.

 

You've got smart "brute" (high intellect), Accurate brute (high Dexterity), Opportunity-maximizer brute (high Perception), and formidable pack-mule brute (high Strength). That's about all the aspects you've got.

 

The "my only saving grace is really that I swing real hard" brute doesn't exist. Because a high-strength brute doesn't swing real hard, and a smart brute A) isn't really a "brute," and B) has other saving graces.

 

Also, you can't really make a physically-feeble yet non-physically uber-powerful Wizard/magic-type. Why? Because if you hit hard with spells, you're going to hit just as hard with weapons. Sure, the other classes will get better melee weapon proficiencies and abilities and such, but you're still going to smash people's skulls in when you DO hit them. Not to mention that, if you want to make a Wizard who's really magically powerful AND highly accurate (with his magic), he's not going to be equally as accurate (AND damaging -- thanks Intellect *thumbs up*!) with any melee weapon he chooses.

 

Here's a fantastic example, because people still seem to not understand the "problem" that's being posed:

 

Imagine Charisma was in the game (even though it's not), and it affected what charisma normally does (basically your skills of persuasion, and people's reaction to you, etc.), AND your Accuracy. There, now try making a badass Ranger who isn't the friendliest, most persuasive guy in the world.

 

And maybe now you get it. It's the fact that Intellect is granting you Intellect AND the only representation that exists of physical strength's affects on offensive capabilities. This is not about being able to make a dumb Brute who's the best character in the game, or even any specific amount of goodness in relation to any other build. It's simply about being able to make a dumb brute, period.

[Fatback]

I'm serious you people don't sound like you know how to role play for real.

 

We don't know the coefficients of the modifiers for the classes did you think that great sword modifier may be .1 on a Mage and 1 on a fighter. Making a fighter with 3 int hit harder than a Mage with 25.

 

This whole 21

[Adhin]

That would be counter productive to there goal in making the attributes be useful for everyone and allow for a wide variety of builds in general if they had some heavily limiter based on class. They might as well just make it so mages can't use swords then. Either case I agree with what Lephys saying, again heh.

 

I had a big rambly post and ended up just not posting but the gist of it was I'm leaning more towards them just keeping Strength and Intelligence and adding in Soul or Spirit to the mix, making it 7 attributes. STR effects 'physical stuff' (melee/bows), INT effects crit dmg and Soul effects soul-related power damage. That would be spells, or spell-like abilities Fighters (and fighter-like classes) have that're fueled by your soul (or a ciphers ability to 'effect' souls). Soul could also effect healing then.

 

With that mages would probably want int and soul, certain fighter builds would end up with some soul. Only issue is I just have no idea what defensive properties that would entail. Well I obviously didn't think that out to tell, either way I'd love a soul stat and hope strength only effects physical stuff. Main reason for that is if they just 'move' damage over to strength as a whole you get the 'exact' opposite. If Spells are dependent on damage like melee is and STR is what does it then theres going to be a lot of absurdly strong mages out there.

 

I mean I think you kinda need to do the renaming stuff or split up what effects what damage wise. Maybe spells don't use an attribute for dmg scaling (pure dmg) but still get stuff for crit chance and crit damage and the like. I mean most of the spells wont be effecting directly against Deflection defense from armor, it'll be mind or reflex based so you already kinda have that disparity on that end. Meh I kinda rambled again...

[Lephys]

I'm serious you people don't sound like you know how to role play for real.

 

We don't know the coefficients of the modifiers for the classes did you think that great sword modifier may be .1 on a Mage and 1 on a fighter. Making a fighter with 3 int hit harder than a Mage with 25.

 

This whole 21

 

I'm with Adhin here. I'm not even coming close to seeing what the point of having INT affect base damage would be if classes got significant base damage modifiers with given weapons.

 

Even if that were the case, you still seem to be missing the point that the least brutish instance of a given character -- regardless of class and weapon skill and equipment -- is the one with the least Intellect, while the most brutish instance is that with maximum Intellect, regardless of Strength or any other stat for that matter.

 

Let's play "who's the brute," shall we?

 

Your party gets captured, has all their equipment taken away, and is tied up. One character is strong to the point of being able to headbutt/wall-crush the guards into unconsciousness/comas AND break his bindings (almost unbelievably so -- his captors felt the bindings were more than sufficient for anyone they knew of), while the other character can't do any of those things without additional tools or resources.

 

Who's the brute? You guessed it! The first character! Does a Wizard get a .1 Base Damage modifier on his own body, while a Fighter gets a 1? So, a Wizard the size of The Rock just sits there whining about wishing he had his grimoire or a weapon so he could actually do something, but the 4'-tall, 80-lb Orlan Fighter can punch through walls and lift Mountains? Why even have a stat named "Strength" then?

 

And why does the possibility of excessive class-based bonuses mean that we don't know how to roleplay? o_O

[Osvir]

I am not all too up to date with the attribute system (nor with this 21 page long thread), to be honest the only thing I hope of it is that it caters more to the IE games than what it does to the more modern RPG's regarding Character Creation & Leveling Up.

I wish for static Attributes akin to the IE games. You spend the points during character creation, then you can go find supplements in the world, some temporary, some equipped and some permanent. Although rare.

A hammer with +1 Strength maybe. Or a potion that grants +1 Strength for 5 minutes. What I don't want is +3 Attribute Points to spend when I level up.

What I speak of is, I suppose, a DnD way of handling it:

Character Creation Example, IE style:

Level 1:
14 Strength
16 Dexterity
13 Endurance
10 Wisdom
14 Intelligence
12 Charisma
 

Level 2: You don't gain any points to spend
14 Strength
16 Dexterity
13 Constitution
10 Wisdom
15 Intelligence (+1 from equipment: Robe of Intelligence)
12 Charisma

Dragon Age style:

Level 1:
14 Strength
16 Dexterity
13 Constitution
10 Wisdom
14 Intelligence
12 Charisma
​

Level 2: +3 Points
15 Strength (+1)
17 Dexterity (+1)
13 Constitution
10 Wisdom
15 Intelligence (+1)
12 Charisma​

And so on and so forth.

I'd personally prefer to avoid the latter, unless scarce points and scattered maybe... every 3rd Level? +1 Point every 3rd Level that is. I think the Attributes matter more in the IE games and define the character you've created, whilst in RPG's where you can spend points makes the attributes define damage, health, dodging, critical hits and so on and forth.

There is, of course, the method wherein stats simply grow with every level. On Level 1 you have 10 Strength, on Level 2 you get 12 Strength and so on and forth. I dislike this method too, but it makes sense in a way. I still think the IE method is the best way to go, create a character with this and that many points (that you put out) and then that's it. No more point spending, but maybe find a sword that gives +1, or a potion, or a skill book etc. etc.
 

Question:

"Attributes" (Called "Abilities" during character creation in the IE-games): Is PE going by a "Level Up Points" (Dynamic) system or a spiritual "Infinity Engine Level Up" (Static) system?

[jamoecw]

maybe attributes only pertain to abilities?  so the super smart wizard can't use a greatsword better than the dumb fighter (they use it equally well, but the dumb brute can survive long enough to do damage with it).  not the best outcome, but better than the wizard killing everything with everything.  maybe their is some aspect of strength that we aren't seeing, like how it boosts weapon proficiencies, mitigates encumbrance so weapons are more effective, or even some sort of relation regarding the weight of weapons a strength requirement.  point is the designers of the game aren't idiots, so their must be something we aren't seeing, mainly due to that a raging beserker is pretty common adventurer trope (dumb brute can mean he takes hits well, it is rather nonspecific in non dnd inspired rpgs), hell they even had a whole dnd class for the trope.

[Silent Winter]

Question:

"Attributes" (Called "Abilities" during character creation in the IE-games): Is PE going by a "Level Up Points" (Dynamic) system or a spiritual "Infinity Engine Level Up" (Static) system?

Josh has said (sorry, can't remember where - was in one of the recent update interviews) that you set your points at character creation and they don't go up [much] from there.

It's the [much] part that I wasn't sure on - perhaps there's an additional point or 2 to spend at level-5 or maybe there'll be 'tomes of smartness/agility' like in the first Baldur's Gate.

[Ganrich]

Attributes are set at character creation and their base values do not increase a lot as you level up.

This quote is from this thread fairly early on. We don't have specifics as to how to raise stats post character creation, but it'll either be through items and tomes, leveling up like 3E, or all of the above.

[Lephys]

 

Question:

"Attributes" (Called "Abilities" during character creation in the IE-games): Is PE going by a "Level Up Points" (Dynamic) system or a spiritual "Infinity Engine Level Up" (Static) system?

Josh has said (sorry, can't remember where - was in one of the recent update interviews) that you set your points at character creation and they don't go up [much] from there.

It's the [much] part that I wasn't sure on - perhaps there's an additional point or 2 to spend at level-5 or maybe there'll be 'tomes of smartness/agility' like in the first Baldur's Gate.

 

 

I think that "much," while vague, basically rules out the typically seen "when I level up, I'll just spend my universal Character Improvement Points (CIP) to will my Charisma and Intelligence to increase, rather than increase my weapon skill!", or "Oh, every other level I gain a stat point!", or "This is Fallout 3, so I can just take an 'Increase a stat however you want' perk like 7 times in a row!"

 

I think basically, it's to distinguish between RPGs in which its normal for stat-improvement to be directly (and somewhat frequently/regularly) affiliated with mere character progression (aka leveling-up), and RPGs in which it isn't. So, it most likely means that there will be ways in which to increase a stat here and there, but at most a handful of times by the end of an entire playthrough, and not as an integral (or at least frequent) part of progression.

 

@jamoecw:

 

I'm with you on that. I'm not trying to suggest the devs are idiots, but we can only discuss this based on what we know and what we don't. All I know is, the sheer stat-effects we've been shown seem a little out-of-whack, and Strength seems to be contradicting itself, regardless of whether or not Intellect and/or various other stats also play a part in damage output.

 

The prototype stat list presented to us was presented in a "obviously this isn't the finished product, but this is a complete prototype" manner, not "Some of the stats will obviously do a lot more stuff, and some of them will ONLY do what we're showing in this list" manner. So, I can only rate the list provided. Doesn't mean I'm saying it's impossible that they're still considering things to have stats affect, or that they're actually putting effort into this and going to change it regardless of whether or not we somehow come up withe perfect design in this thread.

 

Feedback and constructive criticism are simply meant to contribute to the pool of thoughts and knowledge drawn from in order to create the finished product. We don't have to doubt their ability to finalize a solid character-stat system just to critique the prototype.

 

Hence my argument of "I think Strength should affect something in line with physical force, even if it's not directly just base damage bonus." Thus, if what you say is right, and there's something planned for Strength that we just haven't been informed of yet, then all is well. It's a conditional "if" point: IF the prototype list presented earlier in this thread were to be used as the finalized system, then here are problems that might arise. That's all. If it's useful, it's useful. If it isn't, it isn't.

[Sabotin]

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