Attribute theory

[Jon of the Wired]

edit: now that i think about it, if strength mitigates encumbrance, and encumbrance mitigates attack speed, then more strength = faster attack speed = more damage.  which is realistic in a lot of ways.

 

 

That actually sounds like a great idea. It buffs up Strength a bit (and you can tune the degree to which Strength mitigates encumbrance, so it can be easily balanced), which otherwise seems a bit lacking, and it makes Strength especially relevant to heavy-armour builds, which feels very natural.

[Orogun01]

 

edit: now that i think about it, if strength mitigates encumbrance, and encumbrance mitigates attack speed, then more strength = faster attack speed = more damage.  which is realistic in a lot of ways.

 

 

That actually sounds like a great idea. It buffs up Strength a bit (and you can tune the degree to which Strength mitigates encumbrance, so it can be easily balanced), which otherwise seems a bit lacking, and it makes Strength especially relevant to heavy-armour builds, which feels very natural.

 

Not necessarily. Muscle fiber is divided into 2 types; the twitch response on both is different, type one is slow but more resistant to fatigue while type two is fast but don't have much endurance. Different body builds are often the result of different professions, a fencer tends to be faster than a bodybuilder as they have built the muscles that allow them to perform better. Whereas bodybuilders who tend to muscle in bulk  can support higher weights but have less speed, ultimately it comes down to training but game systems tend to put strength as separate from dexterity when the latter is just the result of muscle memory and reflexes.

[Jon of the Wired]

 

 

edit: now that i think about it, if strength mitigates encumbrance, and encumbrance mitigates attack speed, then more strength = faster attack speed = more damage.  which is realistic in a lot of ways.

 

 

That actually sounds like a great idea. It buffs up Strength a bit (and you can tune the degree to which Strength mitigates encumbrance, so it can be easily balanced), which otherwise seems a bit lacking, and it makes Strength especially relevant to heavy-armour builds, which feels very natural.

 

Not necessarily. Muscle fiber is divided into 2 types; the twitch response on both is different, type one is slow but more resistant to fatigue while type two is fast but don't have much endurance. Different body builds are often the result of different professions, a fencer tends to be faster than a bodybuilder as they have built the muscles that allow them to perform better. Whereas bodybuilders who tend to muscle in bulk  can support higher weights but have less speed, ultimately it comes down to training but game systems tend to put strength as separate from dexterity when the latter is just the result of muscle memory and reflexes.

 

 

That's... um... interesting, but I'm not clear on what you're actually disagreeing with.

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

edit: now that i think about it, if strength mitigates encumbrance, and encumbrance mitigates attack speed, then more strength = faster attack speed = more damage.  which is realistic in a lot of ways.

 

 

That actually sounds like a great idea. It buffs up Strength a bit (and you can tune the degree to which Strength mitigates encumbrance, so it can be easily balanced), which otherwise seems a bit lacking, and it makes Strength especially relevant to heavy-armour builds, which feels very natural.

 

Not necessarily. Muscle fiber is divided into 2 types; the twitch response on both is different, type one is slow but more resistant to fatigue while type two is fast but don't have much endurance. Different body builds are often the result of different professions, a fencer tends to be faster than a bodybuilder as they have built the muscles that allow them to perform better. Whereas bodybuilders who tend to muscle in bulk  can support higher weights but have less speed, ultimately it comes down to training but game systems tend to put strength as separate from dexterity when the latter is just the result of muscle memory and reflexes.

 

 

That's... um... interesting, but I'm not clear on what you're actually disagreeing with.

 

I guess it was more of an observation than a disagreement, just that strength as it has been defined in RPGs isn't tied to speed but rather to muscle bulk and lifting.

[coffeetable]

 

edit: now that i think about it, if strength mitigates encumbrance, and encumbrance mitigates attack speed, then more strength = faster attack speed = more damage.  which is realistic in a lot of ways.

 

That actually sounds like a great idea. It buffs up Strength a bit (and you can tune the degree to which Strength mitigates encumbrance, so it can be easily balanced), which otherwise seems a bit lacking, and it makes Strength especially relevant to heavy-armour builds, which feels very natural.

 

Who mentioned anything about items having weight, eh?

[Jon of the Wired]

 

 

edit: now that i think about it, if strength mitigates encumbrance, and encumbrance mitigates attack speed, then more strength = faster attack speed = more damage.  which is realistic in a lot of ways.

 That actually sounds like a great idea. It buffs up Strength a bit (and you can tune the degree to which Strength mitigates encumbrance, so it can be easily balanced), which otherwise seems a bit lacking, and it makes Strength especially relevant to heavy-armour builds, which feels very natural.

Who mentioned anything about items having weight, eh?

Nobody? By "encumbrance" I was referring (and I believe jamoecw was as well) to the fact that heavier armor is going to reduce your attack speed. Nothing to do with explicit item weights.

[Valorian]

Strength affects your Health and number of inventory slots.  Constitution affects Stamina.  Dexterity affects Accuracy.  Perception affects Critical Damage.  Intellect affects Damage and Healing.  Resolve affects Durations and AoE size.  We may slightly shift these, but this is what we will be working with in the foreseeable future.

 

 

I'd prefer magic and mundane physical attacks with weapons to be treated differently.

 

 

Strength: weapon damage // offsets a % of the action speed penalty when wearing armor for spellcasting

 

Constitution: stamina // health

 

Dexterity: melee & ranged accuracy // accuracy for AoE spells like fireball 

 

Perception: affects critical hit damage with weapons // accuracy for non-AoE spells

 

Intellect: affects spell damage and healing // increased DT penetration with weapons

 

Resolve: duration and AoE size

 

 

 

The differentiation is achieved and each stat is useful for every class.

It would be slightly harder to balance, but that's something that goes together with complexity.

[Nonek]

 

Strength affects your Health and number of inventory slots.  Constitution affects Stamina.  Dexterity affects Accuracy.  Perception affects Critical Damage.  Intellect affects Damage and Healing.  Resolve affects Durations and AoE size.  We may slightly shift these, but this is what we will be working with in the foreseeable future.

 

 

I'd prefer magic and mundane physical attacks with weapons to be treated differently.

 

 

Strength: weapon damage // offsets a % of the action speed penalty when wearing armor for spellcasting

 

Constitution: stamina // health

 

Dexterity: melee & ranged accuracy // accuracy for AoE spells like fireball 

 

Perception: affects critical hit damage with weapons // accuracy for non-AoE spells

 

Intellect: affects spell damage and healing // increased DT penetration with weapons

 

Resolve: duration and AoE size

 

 

 

The differentiation is achieved and each stat is useful for every class.

It would be slightly harder to balance, but that's something that goes together with complexity.

 

 

In an ideal world I do think this would be a nice way to make a sensible system that straddles the line between the two extremes, I believe that Mr Sawyer is trying to simplify the systems for convenience however. In which case I suppose intelligence is as good a damage mitigater as any other attribute, though I suppose one could argue for almost any of the others as well.

 

Pity that I won't be able to make a big dumb brute character however as I quite liked the Half Ogre playthroughs in Arcanum, but every system has its downsides.

[Orogun01]

 

 

Strength affects your Health and number of inventory slots.  Constitution affects Stamina.  Dexterity affects Accuracy.  Perception affects Critical Damage.  Intellect affects Damage and Healing.  Resolve affects Durations and AoE size.  We may slightly shift these, but this is what we will be working with in the foreseeable future.

 

 

I'd prefer magic and mundane physical attacks with weapons to be treated differently.

 

 

Strength: weapon damage // offsets a % of the action speed penalty when wearing armor for spellcasting

 

Constitution: stamina // health

 

Dexterity: melee & ranged accuracy // accuracy for AoE spells like fireball 

 

Perception: affects critical hit damage with weapons // accuracy for non-AoE spells

 

Intellect: affects spell damage and healing // increased DT penetration with weapons

 

Resolve: duration and AoE size

 

 

 

The differentiation is achieved and each stat is useful for every class.

It would be slightly harder to balance, but that's something that goes together with complexity.

 

 

In an ideal world I do think this would be a nice way to make a sensible system that straddles the line between the two extremes, I believe that Mr Sawyer is trying to simplify the systems for convenience however. In which case I suppose intelligence is as good a damage mitigater as any other attribute, though I suppose one could argue for almost any of the others as well.

 

Pity that I won't be able to make a big dumb brute character however as I quite liked the Half Ogre playthroughs in Arcanum, but every system has its downsides.

 

Maybe the weapons will have damage multipliers making strength and dex based characters more viable.

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

Are you going to be making certain weapons have strength or intelligence limits before being able to be used?

I've got a bad record with predictions recently, but I'd be surprised if this were the case because it generates serious frustration if you fall 1 point short of a cool item. What I'd be less surprised about is items that are always usable, but suffer some penalty if you fall short on a certain stat. Take STR in Fallout: New Vegas, for example: you can use any weapon while having any amount of strength, but if you have less than the minimum STR specified, you'll suffer accuracy penalties.

 

The other problem it creates is tiered weapon types, which narrows certain classes/builds into using the higher tier weapons exclusively.  A/D&D has never had particularly great weapon balance, but the contrast became stark in 3.X and even more clearly delineated in 4E.  No fighter would regularly use a Simple Weapon in 3E because its Martial equivalents are almost universally superior.  And of course, in 4E, no fighter would regularly use a Simple over a Military or a Military over Superior assuming they can take the requisite feat.  More than even 3.X, 4E funnels characters into lifelong equipment types based around what's ideal for their stats.  If you're wearing some form of hide armor and using a bastard sword at 5th level, you're probably going to be using more magical versions of the same stuff at 10th, 15th, and 20th level.

 

The reason I think this is not particularly great is because it effectively removes (or at least drastically simplifies) decision-making for the character.  Entire classifications of weapons and armor wind up essentially being junk choices.  E.g. medium armor in 3.X is a plague upon almost any character.  If you have no Dex bonus, you're going to wear heavy armor.  Once you get full plate, you're going to wear full plate forever if at all possible.  If you have a high Dex bonus, you're going to wear light armor.  Once you get a chain shirt, you're going to wear a chain shirt forever if at all possible.

 

I put STR reqs on weapons in F:NV to give more importance to STR, but I think it messed with the balance of weapons.  High STR weapons didn't just have to be balanced relative to weapons in their tier.  They had to be balanced relative to other weapons in their tier as superior weapons because they required an investment from the player to properly use them.

 

Strength is one of the most difficult attributes to find immediate and universal applications for that don't wreak havoc with other game systems.  Damage superficially makes sense but makes less sense when you think about attacks that aren't powered by the physical strength of the wielder.

 

As I wrote earlier, these are what we're working with now.  As we keep testing and listening to feedback, we may move them around.

[rjshae]

I wouldn't say it exactly makes 'sense'... Put Albert Einstein in the ring with Ivan Drago and see who does more damage

 

A comparison that actually demonstrates nothing since Ivan Drago is highly skilled in the art of boxing whereas Einstein was not.

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

 

Strength affects your Health and number of inventory slots.  Constitution affects Stamina.  Dexterity affects Accuracy.  Perception affects Critical Damage.  Intellect affects Damage and Healing.  Resolve affects Durations and AoE size.  We may slightly shift these, but this is what we will be working with in the foreseeable future.

 

 

I'd prefer magic and mundane physical attacks with weapons to be treated differently.

 

 

Strength: weapon damage // offsets a % of the action speed penalty when wearing armor for spellcasting

 

Constitution: stamina // health

 

Dexterity: melee & ranged accuracy // accuracy for AoE spells like fireball 

 

Perception: affects critical hit damage with weapons // accuracy for non-AoE spells

 

Intellect: affects spell damage and healing // increased DT penetration with weapons

 

Resolve: duration and AoE size

 

 

 

The differentiation is achieved and each stat is useful for every class.

It would be slightly harder to balance, but that's something that goes together with complexity.

 

 

In an ideal world I do think this would be a nice way to make a sensible system that straddles the line between the two extremes, I believe that Mr Sawyer is trying to simplify the systems for convenience however. In which case I suppose intelligence is as good a damage mitigater as any other attribute, though I suppose one could argue for almost any of the others as well.

 

Pity that I won't be able to make a big dumb brute character however as I quite liked the Half Ogre playthroughs in Arcanum, but every system has its downsides.

 

 

It's not for convenience but for build variety and viability.  Valorian's suggestions are pretty good ones, though there are still gaps where as certain characters I might (correctly) think, "I can dump this and avoid the penalty."  That's important, though less important than "I can max this and gain something," as any class, which Valorian's suggestions cover.

[Nonek]

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

[Sabotin]

I'm looking forward to all the illiterate superstrength barbarians that are wondering why their huge axes are tickling people :D .

 

 

Actually what I meant to say was, aren't you concerned that instead of people being confused by counter intuitive formulas they'll be confused by counter intuitive stats? Or is this feeling just cause I'm used to certain stats doing certain stuff?

[Valorian]

 

 

 

It's not for convenience but for build variety and viability.  Valorian's suggestions are pretty good ones, though there are still gaps where as certain characters I might (correctly) think, "I can dump this and avoid the penalty."  That's important, though less important than "I can max this and gain something," as any class, which Valorian's suggestions cover.

 

 

With those attributes, if someone wants to build a puppeteer kind of spellcaster (mind affecting spells) he can totally dump dexterity, true. Then again, I don't think that each single attribute should benefit every build.

 

Oh, and crossbows and guns would follow the rules of aoe spells: dexterity -> accuracy, intellect -> damage, strength -> offsets armor penalties, perception -> critical hit. Or instead: intellect -> DT penetration, perception -> damage, or vice versa.  Or.. some other combination (for these mechanical weapons there seem to be plenty of combinations and all make sense!)

Edited December 18, 2013 by Valorian

[J.E. Sawyer]

My concern was not about counter-intuitive formulae but systems that promote stat dumping and, by association, non-viable class/stat builds.  The formulae and derived stats affected by any given attribute could be relatively complex as long as they accomplish the two goals I stated, above.

[Gumbercules]

Valorian's suggestion isn't perfect but it does suggest a way towards a system that can represent more build ideas.

 

It's missing an attribute that increases inventory size, and I think I liked it better when Health and Stamina were governed by different attributes. Keeping them separate makes for more interesting choices since depending on the class or general playstyle it might be advantageous to emphasize one or the other, or to emphasize both and ignore the other attributes. Then again, I've seen people claiming either Strength or Constitution might be a dump stat under Sawyer's system, although I'm not sure about that. Seems to me that FIghters would want to emphasize either Strength or both Strength and Constitution, Barbarians would typically prefer Constitution over Strength, and for the other classes it would depend situationally.

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

 

 

 

It's not for convenience but for build variety and viability.  Valorian's suggestions are pretty good ones, though there are still gaps where as certain characters I might (correctly) think, "I can dump this and avoid the penalty."  That's important, though less important than "I can max this and gain something," as any class, which Valorian's suggestions cover.

 

 

With those attributes, if someone wants to build a puppeteer kind of spellcaster (mind affecting spells) he can totally dump dexterity, true. Then again, I don't think that each single attribute should benefit every build.

 

I believe every attribute, if dumped, should harm every build because there are two logical consequences if they do not:

 

1) If I can dump without significant consequence, it is likely (though not necessarily true) that bumping it is similarly without consequence.  This means character concepts that bump that attribute are inherently worse off for having done so.

 

2) If one class can dump stats without significant consequence and others cannot, in practice that class has more attribute points to play with.  E.g. fighters vs. monks and paladins in 3.5.  When one class has abilities that derive benefits from a narrow range of attributes, it becomes difficult to balance their powers against classes that derive benefits from a broader range of attributes.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Valorian's suggestion isn't perfect but it does suggest a way towards a system that can represent more build ideas.

 

It's missing an attribute that increases inventory size, and I think I liked it better when Health and Stamina were governed by different attributes. Keeping them separate makes for more interesting choices since depending on the class or general playstyle it might be advantageous to emphasize one or the other, or to emphasize both and ignore the other attributes. Then again, I've seen people claiming either Strength or Constitution might be a dump stat under Sawyer's system, although I'm not sure about that. Seems to me that FIghters would want to emphasize either Strength or both Strength and Constitution, Barbarians would typically prefer Constitution over Strength, and for the other classes it would depend situationally.

 

I get the Strength argument, not so much the Con argument.  I don't know a lot of D&D character builds that would dump Con.

[decado]

2) If one class can dump stats without significant consequence and others cannot, in practice that class has more attribute points to play with.  E.g. fighters vs. monks and paladins in 3.5.  When one class has abilities that derive benefits from a narrow range of attributes, it becomes difficult to balance their powers against classes that derive benefits from a broader range of attributes.

This was/is a huge problem in 3.5, and I'm glad to see other people noticing it. If you wanted to play a Paladin that could be effective in a real fight, you basically had to ignore Charisma. Because all of the class goodies of the paladin were derived from Charisma, which meant you had less to dump into STR or CON. If you ditched CHA for STR, then you might as well have rolled a fighter. It was annoying, and poorly balanced.

 

I understand that paladins are not fighters, and that being a paladin should be "harder" than being a fighter in some respects, precisely because they are more than fighters. But a lot of the added difficulty of being a paladin comes, at least in my view, from the role-playing aspects of the character -- not being able to accept cash for doing good deeds, taking a vow of poverty, being forced to take the "good" route in a quest even though it is harder, etc. In other words, paladins should be viable combatants and more, perhaps in a way that makes them better than fighters, but the trade-off is in how you play the character and not how easy combat is. If that makes any sense.

Edited December 18, 2013 by decado

[JFSOCC]

2) If one class can dump stats without significant consequence and others cannot, in practice that class has more attribute points to play with.  E.g. fighters vs. monks and paladins in 3.5.  When one class has abilities that derive benefits from a narrow range of attributes, it becomes difficult to balance their powers against classes that derive benefits from a broader range of attributes.

and less choice.

 

I've been trying to see with what you've released how I would build my character, and I find it to be challenging (but fair) I would have to make some real choices, rather than some obvious ones.

[decado]

Regarding the "Intellect" stat influencing damage . . .

 

First, it is worth nothing that "intellect" is different from "intelligence." They are not the same thing. Intellect can include a variety of things like intuitiveness, quick-thinking, memory and recall, and problem-solving. Intellect is all about understanding, and all of these things would impact your effectiveness as a combatant.

 

This doesn't meant it should be a direct stack. It might make more sense to include intellect as a damage modifier if certain conditions are met. I like the idea of using it to determine penetration past DT because the abstraction here is that a brainy combatant is wily enough to seek out and exploit armor weaknesses (for example). Or, it might make a good modifier if it is used AFTER the Strength modifier is resolved. So if a fighter is up against another fighter and their strength is equal, maybe give the fighter with a higher intellect a better chance to crit (instead of just tacking on raw damage).

 

But this should only come into play after the strength difference is resolved. I can see two fighters, both with 15 STR, battling it out and the guy with the higher INT doing more damage because he is a smarter fighter. I can also see a fighter with, say, 12 STR battling it out with a guy with 15 STR, and the weaker fighter still getting a bonus from his INT. But what I cannot see is a fighter with 6 STR being able to stand up to a guy with 15 STR, regardless of the weaker guy's INT. Because there is a point where no amount of brains is going to save you if you if the difference in STR is so large.

[Valorian]

 

 

 

 

 

It's not for convenience but for build variety and viability.  Valorian's suggestions are pretty good ones, though there are still gaps where as certain characters I might (correctly) think, "I can dump this and avoid the penalty."  That's important, though less important than "I can max this and gain something," as any class, which Valorian's suggestions cover.

 

 

With those attributes, if someone wants to build a puppeteer kind of spellcaster (mind affecting spells) he can totally dump dexterity, true. Then again, I don't think that each single attribute should benefit every build.

 

I believe every attribute, if dumped, should harm every build because there are two logical consequences if they do not:

 

1) If I can dump without significant consequence, it is likely (though not necessarily true) that bumping it is similarly without consequence.  This means character concepts that bump that attribute are inherently worse off for having done so.

 

2) If one class can dump stats without significant consequence and others cannot, in practice that class has more attribute points to play with.  E.g. fighters vs. monks and paladins in 3.5.  When one class has abilities that derive benefits from a narrow range of attributes, it becomes difficult to balance their powers against classes that derive benefits from a broader range of attributes.

 

 

About my example...

The spellcaster won't be screwed if he dumps or bumps dexterity. If he dumps dexterity.. oh well, he can focus on non-aoe spells. If he bumps it he can focus on aoe* spells. Should the attribute system rescue people that insist on casting aoe spells with exceptionally low dexterity for example, when they have the option to cast other types of spells?

 

So it wouldn't be a necessary attribute nor would it be a bad attribute, for a spellcaster.

 

Current PoE strength, though, does seem a bit dumpy. Having lower base health and less inventory slots is more of an inconvenience than anything else.

 

*Spells that would, in-character, need good aim.

[forgottenlor]

I like the attribute system a lot, but I'd definately rename intellect.

[Yonjuro]

....

But this should only come into play after the strength difference is resolved. I can see two fighters, both with 15 STR, battling it out and the guy with the higher INT doing more damage because he is a smarter fighter. I can also see a fighter with, say, 12 STR battling it out with a guy with 15 STR, and the weaker fighter still getting a bonus from his INT. But what I cannot see is a fighter with 6 STR being able to stand up to a guy with 15 STR, regardless of the weaker guy's INT. Because there is a point where no amount of brains is going to save you if you if the difference in STR is so large.

 

 This is a fair point, but it depends (entirely) on the scale. E.g. if strength ranges from:

 

1 - person of mass X can do a full squat with a bar weighing X (a.k.a. weak as a kitten) 

to 

100 - person of mass X can do a full squat with a bar weighing 3X (a.k.a. a strength athlete)

(with 50 being say, 2X, a reasonable strength for a non-strength athlete)

 

that's very different than if the scale is:

1  - person isn't strong enough to raise a firearm (or, you know, breathe when it's humid)

to

100  - person can lift the city of Cleveland

 

In the first case, a 1 vs. a 100 would have been a plausible fight except that the character with 1 STR is going to die due to the health deficit (which, of course, will also depend on the scale, but I'm making an assumption here).

 

In the second case, clearly a 1 can't fight a 100 (or anyone else who is strong enough to move under their own power).

 

I guess what we need to know is how many inventory slots each character will get. If the range is a factor of 2 or 3 that's different than if it is a factor of 100 or 1000.

 

(edited for a typo)

Edited December 18, 2013 by Yonjuro