Attribute theory

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Numenera only has three stats (Might, Intellect, and Speed) and is IMO better for it.

How did that work out? I haven't got around to a good game of Numenera yet, so I'm ignorant of the system.

[rjshae]

All this talk of muscle fibers, knowing where to hit,  and such is just a rationalization. Strength affects melee damage. It's common sense.

 

I agree that Strength affects melee damage, but so does knowing where to hit and having the ability to hit it. A quick fighter with a rapier can kill you just as dead as a burly fighter with a great axe. The latter would seem to have an advantage in blowing through heavy armor but do poorly at hitting a nimble opponent, whereas the former would probably do better against a wider range of foes, but particularly against those wearing light or no armor. As long as the system reflects that, then it will probably work out statistically.

Edited December 19, 2013 by rjshae

[Caerdon]

The idea that strength (in real world) doesn't affect weapon damage is just plain silly.

 

Sure, precision cutting and piercing weapons like a rapier can do well withouth a lot of force behind a strike, especially against an unarmoured opponent, but strenght is still definitely a factor. On the other hand, there are a plethora of weapons that benefit hugely from increased strenght: maces, clubs, war hammers, axes, halberds, quarterstaffs, spears, glaives, javelins, bows. In fact, if there was one weapon type where it would make sense for every individual weapon to have a specific minimum strength requirement, that would be bows.

 

That said, do I have a problem with a game mechanic where damage is determined by intellect instead of strength? Not really, if it leads to good gameplay. Still, I think strenght should be a factor with most weapons, and not just melee weapons. It could also be a factor when determining how much proctection you get from using a shield (and I hope we'll see much more shields than dual-wielding soldiers in this game).

[rjshae]

I think it would work out okay if every weapon had a strength requirement, with an increasing penalty for being below that strength (be it in speed or attack proficiency). Stronger characters would migrate toward heavier weapons that only they can readily wield, effectively resulting in greater damage. This is reflected in the typical burly fighter imagery where they wield massive axes, swords or clubs.

[forgottenlor]

I think it would work out okay if every weapon had a strength requirement, with an increasing penalty for being below that strength (be it in speed or attack proficiency). Stronger characters would migrate toward heavier weapons that only they can readily wield, effectively resulting in greater damage. This is reflected in the typical burly fighter imagery where they wield massive axes, swords or clubs.

I'm really hoping this is the case. It would be a great balance if both armour and weapons have strength requirements and both are significant factors in defence and damage. I think it would be cool if this lead to the deadly double wielding dagger character with a high intellect, and the burly great axe wielding brute, who also can dish out due to being able to wield a massive weapon.

[Caerdon]

I think it would work out okay if every weapon had a strength requirement, with an increasing penalty for being below that strength (be it in speed or attack proficiency). Stronger characters would migrate toward heavier weapons that only they can readily wield, effectively resulting in greater damage. This is reflected in the typical burly fighter imagery where they wield massive axes, swords or clubs.

 

The thing is that, at least in our real-life history, the overwhelming majority of weapons were made for the average soldier. Heavy weapons that only a very strong person could use were almost never used in battle. "Massive" axes and swords never really existed, except for ceremonial purposes. (Bows are really the only exception to that, they were made with a wide range of draw weights.)

 

For this reason it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a strength requirement for most weapons - a better solution would be to make strength matter with weapons in the first place, affecting things like attack speed, damage, accuracy, stagger/disarm chance etc.

[Nonek]

Theoretical spitballing here:

 

I can see why Mr Sawyer chose intelligence for healing and damage, as two sides of the same coin. Where one needs a thorough knowledge of the human body and how it works to heal it, so one can also more effectively destroy it (Living Anatomy Fallout?) However personally I would say that this more equates with critical damage than perception, a stat I would personally use as the damage modifier for ranged weapons. Your dexterity lets you hit them, perception makes sure that it is in the right place.

 

Health I would not tie to strength, i've seen many strong men who are extremely unhealthy but retain their thews. Rather I would disassociate health from stats entirely, with perhaps the exception of resolve in times of stress, and base it upon ones class or even race. However I realise that that is a very big step away from the norm. I would use strength for physical damage in hand to hand combat, but not for inventory as i've always held that it is constitution that allows one to carry great weights over a distance. Strength is more the indicator of whether one may lift that weight to begin with than the endurance of it.

 

Just my tuppence ha'penny on the subject, and mostly aimed at refining my own in house rules for when I re-start a pen and paper campaign. I will say however that I don't envy anyone designing such a system, the fluidity and malleability of English allows many words to carry many meanings to many people and finding one that satisfies the majority will always be a chore one suspects.

[Yonjuro]

Hi All,

 

  We've seen a lot of post comparing the attribute system to real life (or perceptions of it), but (I think) the goal was not to simulate RL - at all.

 

 A better way to give constructive feedback to the developers might be to describe a character build that is important to you but that isn't supported by the attribute system.

 

 For example, maybe you want the Minsc build - dumb as a bag of hammers but hits like a truck. Do the atrributes support that? 

 

 I think the closest you can get is either the Rocky Balboa build - dumb but can soak up enough damage to win by attrition or the Sarevok build - really smart and hits like a truck. I think I'm ok with those options if there is a wider variety of builds overall(, but maybe you have a different opinion).

 

 So, what build do you want that doesn't seem to be supported?

Edited December 19, 2013 by Yonjuro

[rjshae]

 

I think it would work out okay if every weapon had a strength requirement, with an increasing penalty for being below that strength (be it in speed or attack proficiency). Stronger characters would migrate toward heavier weapons that only they can readily wield, effectively resulting in greater damage. This is reflected in the typical burly fighter imagery where they wield massive axes, swords or clubs.

 

The thing is that, at least in our real-life history, the overwhelming majority of weapons were made for the average soldier. Heavy weapons that only a very strong person could use were almost never used in battle. "Massive" axes and swords never really existed, except for ceremonial purposes. (Bows are really the only exception to that, they were made with a wide range of draw weights.)

 

It's a fantasy setting and there are humanoid creatures of many different sizes and capabilities. Hence, your historical analogy don't apply.

[J.E. Sawyer]

A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this:

 

Might

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

or

 

Power

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

What would you assume the stat that affects damage would be? Based on that answer, if you discovered that stat affected all damage and healing, including damage and healing from sources like guns and wands and bows and fireball spells, how would you feel about it?

[Gfted1]

Of those choices, I would assume that the first stat (Might/Power) affected damage. Imo, physical and magical damage should come from different sources.

[Orogun01]

One stat for all damage = invest heavily. 

[J.E. Sawyer]

In D&D, a lot of classes already have a single stat that governs damage.  For fighters, it's Strength.  You can easily play a Strength-damage fighter from level 1 on.  The issue, IMO, is not that there's a single stat that governs damage for any given class (or all classes), but that there are many stats that do not provide an appealing incentive to take instead of that damage stat.

[butterfly]

If I had to guess I would say the damage governing stat was power/might. Renaming the stat might however alleviate some of the dissonance people feel with Strength not governing damage.

 

I don't really mind the fact that the damage bonus is universal, it's elegant.

[Valorian]

 

A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this:

 

Might

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

or

 

Power

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

What would you assume the stat that affects damage would be? Based on that answer, if you discovered that stat affected all damage and healing, including damage and healing from sources like guns and wands and bows and fireball spells, how would you feel about it?

 

 

I wouldn't like it. I want strength as an attribute because it conveys something specific, which is not the case with power nor might (they're very broad terms).

[butterfly]

What effect would renaming a stat have on it's use in dialog checks. If we had to move a statue would you check the Power stat?

Edited December 19, 2013 by butterfly

[Yonjuro]

 

If I hadn't seen the earlier attribute definitions I would have assumed that Might/Power affects damage. I don't object to it affecting all damage and healing. It isn't obvious from the name that it has anything to do with healing - I guess power could include healing power. 

 

 If that means that intellect affects health and number of inventory slots, I don't know if that's more intuitive than the old definitions. In that case, I think I would call intellect 'health'. Of course, an attribute called health that doesn't affect healing is a little strange too, so maybe a different name. 'Robustness' ? 'Hardiness'? 'Moxie'??

 

 

(Edited because forum ate my post).

 

Edited December 19, 2013 by Yonjuro

[Labadal]

 

A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this:

 

Might

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

or

 

Power

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

What would you assume the stat that affects damage would be? Based on that answer, if you discovered that stat affected all damage and healing, including damage and healing from sources like guns and wands and bows and fireball spells, how would you feel about it?

 

 

When I see those lists, the first stat is the one I would think is the best one for dealing higher damage.

 

I think Strength being the stat for melee damage isn't that bad.

Then you have Intellect affect critical hits.

Perception would affect accuracy.

Instead of Dexterity, I'd like to see something like Agility. Affecting i.e attack speed.

 

I've always wanted intellect to have a relation to melee weapon damage. Critical strikes to me isn't always about hitting a character with brute strength. When I think critical strike, I also think about how a weak spot was exposed.

Resolve is a good stat from what I have read in this thread.

I'd rather see constitution affect inventory slots/space. It might not make sense, but usually, fighter types will want to add some constitution either way.

[Jon of the Wired]

Seeing either of those lists I would assume that Power / Might governs damage, but learning that it covered melee, ranged, magic damage, and healing would throw me a bit. Abilities in D&D are really simulationist first. They describe what a character is like on a handful of (largely arbitrarily chosen) axis, which are understood even without game mechanics (I know something about a character merely by knowing that they have a Strength of 15 (out of 18), even if I have no idea what the related mechanics are). The game then applies mechanics to those ratings that sort of make sense and sort of produce good gameplay.

 

Admittedly, it's unlikely that the traditional approach to ability scores is going to produce the best game mechanics, but it is deeply ingrained in RPG players. An attribute like Might or Power that is defined as "the stat that makes you do more damage" is unlikely to get a great reception. One way to think about the problem is to imagine how the attribute would be used in dialogs and other non-combat activities. It seems like it would inevitably end up feeling pretty incoherent.

 

Does there even need to be a damage stat? I don't know if the lack of an attribute derived damage bonus is the worst thing in the world. I think the original list of attributes would be pretty satisfying if you came up with a new effect for Intellect, and Strength mitigated the speed penalty from armor.

[Labadal]

I think that if Strength does not affect damage, like you said, it should maybe give speed benefits for wearing heavy armor (if it is also the stat that affects inventory space).

 

Dexterity is the stat I don't like, and never have. It feels to me that the term is very broad.

 

My thoughts on offensive bonuses:

Strength - damage output for weapons improve, mitigate slower movement while wearing armor, stamina increase

Constitution - Health increase, more inventory space

Agility - Faster attacks with any weapon, improves dodging

Perception - Improves ranged damage and accuracy for all weapons, spells

Intellect - Increases critical damage for everything, including spells, increased spell damage

Resolve - The one stat I'm in complete agreement with you

 

Fortitude, willpower and reflexes would still be governed by two attributes each like you posted earlier in the thread.

[PrimeJunta]

 

Numenera only has three stats (Might, Intellect, and Speed) and is IMO better for it.

How did that work out? I haven't got around to a good game of Numenera yet, so I'm ignorant of the system.

 

Very well, IMO. I especially like the Effort mechanic; it gives tactical in-the-moment decisions a whole new dimension.

 

I'm not sure how well Numenera rules would translate to a cRPG, though.

[PrimeJunta]

A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this:

 

Might

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

or

 

Power

Constitution

Dexterity

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

What would you assume the stat that affects damage would be? Based on that answer, if you discovered that stat affected all damage and healing, including damage and healing from sources like guns and wands and bows and fireball spells, how would you feel about it?

Based purely on the stat names, I'd assume "power" or "might." And I would think it felt "off" especially "might" and especially for ranged weapons; I'd be less confused about wands and spells. However I think "intellect" feels more "off" than either of those.

 

I also don't care all that much about what the stats are named, and quite like the sound of the proposed mechanics.

[forgottenlor]

I personally think "insight," "power," "force," or "intensity" would convey a damage stat to me more than "intellect." In the end they are just words, and I've got to admit I am sure that I am biased by decades of PNP games and CRPGS, but for me intellect is tied to thinking and knowledge, and while that's fine and good for magical damage, I have a hard time thinking of it as tied to physical damage as well. The way the actual system works suits me fine, and I'll have no problem looking past the terms if they stay how they are. I actually like the mechanics of the attribute system a lot.

[Gumbercules]

Strength - damage output for weapons improve, mitigate slower movement while wearing armor, stamina increase

Constitution - Health increase, more inventory space

Agility - Faster attacks with any weapon, improves dodging

Perception - Improves ranged damage and accuracy for all weapons, spells

Intellect - Increases critical damage for everything, including spells, increased spell damage

Resolve - The one stat I'm in complete agreement with you

 

Fortitude, willpower and reflexes would still be governed by two attributes each like you posted earlier in the thread.

 

I like this, at least at first glance. It's simpler and has fewer inputs/outputs than some of the other proposed alternatives, but feels more appropriate (though not necessarily more balanced) than Josh's original post. Although I'm not sure if Constitution should affect Health or if it should affect Stamina. Whichever ends up being more important in practice.

 

That said, as time goes by and I think on it and read people's arguments for and against the original system, I'm growing to like it more and more. It definitely has flaws, but it also has an elegance that any fix seems to diminish. And to me Might and Power have similar connotations as Strength, so renaming that stat but keeping the same function wouldn't really do anything except maybe signal the break from D&D tradition more clearly.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

How did that work out? I haven't got around to a good game of Numenera yet, so I'm ignorant of the system.

Very well, IMO. I especially like the Effort mechanic; it gives tactical in-the-moment decisions a whole new dimension.

 

I'm not sure how well Numenera rules would translate to a cRPG, though.

 

 

Well, I'm not entirely sure it was a wise decision to make you expend your health in order to succeed at extraordinarily difficult tasks. Also, when I think of burly characters (invested in Might only) and the representation of massive damage by moving down on the damage track, I can't help but feel that it's a really bad mechanism. It leads to strong and tough types being actually the worst at withstanding grievous injuries, while their dodgier or more resolved brethren are way safer.  It's kinda ridiculous that when you throw them off a cliff then drop an anvil on their heads (move down 2 steps on the damage track), the experienced warrior's barely alive, the charismatic rogue is hurt, but has some reserves to call upon, but the weedy geek's health pool's almost intact.

 

 

A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this:

 

(...)

What would you assume the stat that affects damage would be? Based on that answer, if you discovered that stat affected all damage and healing, including damage and healing from sources like guns and wands and bows and fireball spells, how would you feel about it?

 

 

Power/Might. I'd say it's OK - then again, I've seen systems where your five attributes are Cool, Hard, Sharp, Hot and Weird, or there's only two, Ice and Light, so... my tolerance for non-simulationism is pretty high.

Edited December 19, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid